Author: admin

  • How rare are colleges that enroll and graduate high shares of Pell Grant students?

    How rare are colleges that enroll and graduate high shares of Pell Grant students?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    When it comes to colleges where Pell Grant recipients are at least 55% likely to graduate, there are not a whole lot throughout the U.S. In fact, nearly half of states — many of them Southern with some of the highest poverty rates in the country — don’t have any at all.

    That’s what Becca Spindel Bassett, higher education professor at the University of Arkansas, discovered in a recent analysis in which she sought to identify and map institutions of higher education that she describes as “equity engines.” 

    These are colleges where at least 34% of the students receive Pell Grants and at least 55% of those Pell Grant recipients earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

    Out of the 1,584 public and private nonprofit four-year institutions that Bassett studied nationwide, she found only 91 — or less than 6% — that qualified for her “equity engine” distinction

    And they’re all clustered in 26 states, resulting in what Bassett calls a “spatial injustice” for low-income students who live in one of the states without any equity engines or in areas with limited access to such institutions.

    The almost eight dozen existing equity engines represent a diverse range of institutional types, including regional public universities, small Christian colleges and historically Black institutions. 

    As for whether states can invest more in colleges that are close to being equity engines — a key recommendation of Bassett’s study — it all depends.

    “It’s worth noting that over half of Equity Engines are private colleges and universities, so their relationship to the state and dependency on state funding varies,” Bassett said in an email to Higher Ed Dive.

    But improving Pell graduation rates isn’t only a question of funding models, she said. 

    Leaders at aspiring equity engines can learn best practices and approaches from these colleges and should be prepared to enact “organizational learning and change,” Bassett said. However, much is unknown about what enables colleges to become equity engines, including whether it depends on their programs and services or their policy and funding environments. 

    While Bassett’s study doesn’t answer those questions, a forthcoming book will describe how two of the colleges she identified as equity engines were able to achieve their results, she said. 

    Michael Itzkowitz, founder and president of the HEA Group, a higher ed-focused research firm and consultancy, said in an email that identifying colleges with strong graduation rates is a “good first step” because students who earn a degree “typically earn more than those who do not.” 

    However, Itzkowitz, who under former President Barack Obama served as the director of The College Scorecard — an online federal tool with various data on higher education institutions — added that it’s also critical to consider whether graduates are actually better off economically since “not all institutions and degrees are created equal.”

    “Students who earn a credential at one institution may experience wildly different outcomes if they earned the same degree elsewhere,” he said.

    David Hawkins, chief education and policy officer at the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said in an email that colleges would do well to emulate the equity engines Bassett identified, such as the University of Illinois Chicago. Bassett’s study calls the university a “major driver” of bachelor’s degree completion among Pell Grant recipients in the state, noting those students have a 58% six-year graduation rate.

    Among other things, Hawkins said, such institutions deploy a wide range of services — such as evening or online courses for working students, and transportation to campus — that have been proven to help low-income students cross the finish line.

     “From my perspective, the United States will only remain competitive if we can invest in a postsecondary infrastructure that serves all students who seek opportunity through higher education,” Hawkins said.  

    Source link

  • Tracking the Trump administration’s deals with colleges

    Tracking the Trump administration’s deals with colleges

    It all started with Columbia University. 

    In early March, less than two months after President Donald Trump took office, his administration canceled $400 million in federal research funding to the Ivy League institution. The funding cut came just days after federal officials announced a probe into the university, claiming it failed to protect Jewish students from harassment. 

    More civil rights investigations and funding freezes followed — at Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, University of California, Los Angeles and others. Along with allegations related to antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests, the administration has attacked diversity efforts and policies allowing transgender women to compete on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. 

    The first to face a funding hit, Columbia in March also became the first university to agree to a host of demands from the Trump administration to see its federal funding restored. 

    The university then cut a larger deal in July. That agreement included a $221 million payment to the federal government, as well as academic and policy changes, in exchange for having its suspended funding mostly restored. Despite concerns in the higher education world about Columbia’s concessions, Brown, Penn and the University of Virginia also inked their own accords with the administration to resolve investigations.

    Other deals could follow. Harvard, for example, has been supposedly on the cusp of a deal with the administration for months now — according to periodic news reports — as it seeks an end to a multi-front attack on the university by Trump’s government. 

    Moreover, the administration has directly offered priority for federal funding to select universities that agree to a broad set of terms covering academics, tuition, speech and other areas historically left to institutions to decide. So far, seven have rejected the compact and none have formally accepted, though Trump appeared to open the offer up to all colleges earlier in October.

    Here’s a look at the deals signed so far between colleges and the government — and the impact on the institutions involved.

    Source link

  • How interactive tech simplifies IT and supercharges learning

    How interactive tech simplifies IT and supercharges learning

    Key points:

    Today’s school IT teams juggle endless demands–secure systems, manageable devices, and tight budgets–all while supporting teachers who need tech that just works.

    That’s where interactive displays come in. Modern, OS-agnostic solutions like Promethean’s ActivPanel 10 Premium simplify IT management, integrate seamlessly with existing systems, and cut down on maintenance headaches. For schools, that means fewer compatibility issues, stronger security, and happier teachers.

    But these tools do more than make IT’s job easier–they transform teaching and learning. Touch-enabled collaboration, instant feedback, and multimedia integration turn passive lessons into dynamic, inclusive experiences that keep students engaged and help teachers do their best work.

    Built to last, interactive displays also support long-term sustainability goals and digital fluency–skills that carry from classroom to career.

    Discover how interactive technology delivers 10 powerful benefits for schools.

    Download the full report and see how interactive solutions can help your district simplify IT, elevate instruction, and create future-ready classrooms.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Summer Courses to Help Incoming College Students Adjust

    Summer Courses to Help Incoming College Students Adjust

    National data suggests today’s college students are less prepared to succeed in college than previous cohorts, due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote instruction. Students lack academic and socio-emotional readiness, administrators say, prompting colleges to implement new interventions to get them up to speed.

    For years, Mount Saint Mary’s University in California has offered a summer bridge program for students who may be less prepared to make the transition to college, such as first-generation students.

    This summer, MSMU launched Summer Pathways, which is designed for all incoming students to get a head start on college. They complete two college courses for free and are able to connect with peers and explore campus before starting the term.

    “We felt the earlier we can engage students, the better,” said Amanda Romero, interim assistant provost.

    How it works: Summer Pathways is a six-week, credit-bearing experience that takes place in the middle of the summer, after orientation in June but before classes start in August.

    During the program, students complete a Summer Pathway seminar and one additional introductory course, choosing among sociology, English and mathematics.

    Students take classes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; on Tuesdays and Thursdays they participate in workshops about managing their time, dealing with impostor syndrome or maintaining well-being.

    “We’ve invited the whole campus community to come in, meet with our students in person, talk about their careers, their offices, how they ended up at the Mount, what their hopes and aspirations are for the future,” said Elizabeth Sturgeon, interim assistant provost and director for Summer Pathways.

    The goal is to make students aware of campus resources and connect them with faculty and staff early in their college careers.

    The program also takes students on fun excursions around Los Angeles, including to the ballet, the Hollywood Bowl and the Getty Museum.

    The experience is free, and students are given a $250 stipend to help pay for gas and food. They can also pay $3,000 to live in a residence hall for the six-week program if they don’t want to commute to campus each day.

    A community approach: While many faculty work on eight-month contracts and have the summers off, Sturgeon and Romero said it wasn’t difficult to get professors engaged and on campus for the program.

    “We had departments that had never participated in Summer Pathways before, never knew what it was about, opting in and coming down in person to present to our students,” Sturgeon said.

    “It’s important for our core faculty to get in front of students, and this is a great opportunity to do just that,” Romero said.

    Returning students also stepped up to serve as peer mentors for new students.

    The program has paid off thus far, leaders said, with students hitting the ground running at the start of the term.

    “It offers a smoother transition,” Romero said. “A lot of anxiety with starting a new place is ‘where’s this, where’s that, where do I go?’”

    “They know what the resources are, they know where to park, what to order in the cafeteria,” Sturgeon said. “They have a friend group; they have that one peer mentor who’s their friend they can reach out to. From day one, in the business of being a college student, they’re an alum after six weeks.”

    What’s next: In summer 2025, 66 out of 90 incoming students participated in Summer Pathways, engaging in five different courses. And 98.5 percent of them matriculated in the fall.

    In the future, campus leaders hope to introduce project-based learning into the courses, interweaving the university’s mission as a Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet institution.

    “We just want to make it bigger going forward, with more classes and students participating,” Sturgeon said.

    The overarching dream is to get all incoming students to sign up, but administrators recognize that those who don’t live in the region may face additional barriers to engaging in in-person activities because they lack housing. Sturgeon and Romero are pushing for additional resources to offer housing and seeking solutions to address the need for additional funding and staffing.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Shutting Women Out of Preferred Courses Sets Them Back

    Shutting Women Out of Preferred Courses Sets Them Back

    Getting shut out of a preferred course can have lasting negative effects on incoming female students, a recent working paper found.

    The paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, tracked first-year students at Purdue University who couldn’t take their first-choice classes in 2018 because of a surge in enrollment. Incoming students had to rank their course preferences; 49 percent got into all the courses they wanted, but 51 percent were shut out of a course.

    The study found that female students locked out of a course were 7.5 percent less likely to graduate within four years than women who got to take their desired courses. Their cumulative college GPAs were also slightly lower—by 0.05 points—than those of female students who took their preferred classes their first semester. Women locked out of a course were 5 percent less likely to major in STEM fields and even earned about 3.5 percent less in salary after they graduated, compared to female students who took their top-choice courses their first year.

    The working paper found no statistically significant effects on male students.

    “Our estimates suggest that reducing course shutouts, particularly for STEM courses, can be an effective way to improve female-student outcomes,” co-author Kevin Mumford, an associate dean and professor at Purdue’s Mitch Daniels School of Business, told The Wall Street Journal.

    Source link

  • UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    Just_Super/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    The University of Illinois system is telling its institutions they can’t consider race, color, national origin or sex in hiring, tenure, promotion and student financial aid decisions—a move that’s drawn opposition from a faculty union at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Aaron Krall, president of UIC United Faculty, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors, said the UI system circumvented shared governance.

    “This was a directive that came down and surprised everyone,” Krall said.

    The system implemented a policy saying it and its universities don’t consider race or the other factors in determining eligibility for need- or merit-based financial aid. In a statement, the system further said it “issued guidance to its universities to ensure that hiring, promotion, and tenure processes follow the same standards.”

    The statement said, “There may be some variation in how and when changes are fully operationalized” across its three universities: UIC, Springfield and Urbana-Champaign. The system didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview Tuesday about why it’s making this change now.

    Krall shared communications that he said UIC officials sent out last week. One, from Chancellor Marie Lynn Miranda and others, suggested the student aid change would apply to “donor-funded, college-determined and institutionally funded scholarships” and said “UIC will replace its Affirmative Action Plan with a Nondiscrimination and Merit-Based Hiring Plan.”

    In another message Krall provided, a UIC official wrote that “faculty may no longer submit a Statement on Efforts to Promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the dossier, nor may faculty members be evaluated on norms related to” DEI. The official wrote that the system “made this decision after carefully considering the increased risk to our faculty and to the University that these criteria present in the current climate.”

    Krall said. “The most shocking thing to me, really, is they want to change the policy and make it retroactive—so we have [affected] faculty members going up for promotion right now who have already submitted their promotion materials.” He said the union has demanded the right to bargain over these changes.

    Source link

  • Addressing Student-Centered Transfer Reform in Los Angeles

    Addressing Student-Centered Transfer Reform in Los Angeles

    California’s community college–to–four-year university transfer pipeline has not delivered the outcomes students need. While 80 percent of community college students intend to transfer, just 19 percent reach a California State University campus within four years. The gap is stark. While there have been numerous statewide efforts to define clear pathways to California State University and the University of California, time and time again it’s taken local innovation and collaboration between sending and receiving colleges to make a real difference.

    In Los Angeles, which enrolls a quarter of the state’s students, educators and partners have spent nearly a decade working to support student-centered transfer innovations by focusing attention on implementation of the associate degree for transfer (A.D.T.), a 2+2 pathway intended to offer community college students guaranteed admission to the CSU and an efficient path to graduation. Cross-sector education and workforce collaboratives like the L.A. Compact and the L.A. Region K–16 Collaborative, both convened by UNITE-LA—a nonprofit advancing equitable education and career pathways—have stewarded this work.

    In 2017, UNITE-LA brought together leaders from California State University, Northridge; the L.A. Community College District; and other local public and private universities to attempt to solve a common challenge: re-engaging students who stopped out. Recognizing that institutions had a shared responsibility to support this student population, California’s first reverse-transfer program was born.

    CSUN Connections went further than traditional reverse-transfer models by helping disengaged students seamlessly transfer their credits to a partnering community college, apply them to an A.D.T. when available and then transfer back to CSUN to complete their bachelor’s with all the benefits of an associate degree. This work required us to take stock of the student data and identify where institutional and systemwide policy barriers, including degree offerings, residency requirements and program misalignments, were costing students additional time and money

    Concurrently, campus partners wanted to better understand A.D.T. pathway availability and student outcomes from a regional perspective. Recognizing that the benefits of the A.D.T. unravel when such degrees are not locally available or, when available, rendered inaccessible by enrollment impaction, 16 community colleges and four CSUs engaged in historic data sharing to assemble a clearer picture.

    The findings were clear: The A.D.T. was not yielding the desired results. Students who earn the A.D.T. transfer to CSU at half the rate of non-A.D.T. earners. A.D.T. earners often did not complete their degree in two years, and many did not enter CSU in the same field of study. This is due, in part, to the fact that A.D.T.s are not offered locally in many high-paying fields in popular majors like STEM and health. Students of color, especially L.A.’s African American student population, were even less likely to earn the degree, transfer or enter high-demand fields.

    In response, UNITE-LA convened a 2021 community of practice focused on improving transfer pathways in the region, asking, to what extent do our educational systems yield inequities in transfer, and for whom? Why is this happening? And how might we bring change? The group surfaced systemic challenges and also revealed that meaningful solutions must be developed at the campus level.

    From 2022 to 2024, UNITE-LA piloted a new approach: the Student-Centered Transfer Redesign Process. In partnership with California State University, Dominguez Hills; Cal Poly Pomona; and their feeder community colleges, campus administrators and staff in academic affairs, student services and enrollment management worked together alongside faculty to diagnose barriers and design strategies to improve transfer and bachelor’s attainment.

    The process went beyond policy change—it built campus capacity. Participants gained deeper understanding of equity gaps, stronger cross-campus relationships and hands-on tools for problem solving. Empathy interviews with transfer students shifted the focus from what students did or didn’t do to what they experienced, learned and overcame. This perspective is critical to making a student-ready system instead of making students conform to existing policies that don’t serve them.

    For example, through the Transfer Redesign Process, CSUDH looked at data-backed recommendations of the statewide AB 928 Committee and assessed the viability of expanding its campus emergency aid program for prematriculated transfer students. Such aid could help incoming transfer students navigate unexpected expenses associated with transfer, such as moving costs, childcare costs and additional transportation expenses like up-front parking or transit pass fees.

    In another example, Cal Poly Pomona sought to partner with a feeder community college to implement eTranscript in order to create faster and more consistent transcript and data-sharing processes to support transfer student success. As noted in a recent study of five public institutions in California, despite improvements in available technology, transcript sharing remains a highly manual process that can delay transfer students in receiving final credit-evaluation decisions that are needed for accurate advisement and on-time course registration.

    These efforts underscore a core lesson: Localized collaboration is essential for effective implementation of state policy, to diagnose new challenges as they arise, to develop responsive solutions from the ground up and then to advocate for the scaling of innovations that work. The size of California’s higher education systems and complexity of degree pathways require more robust investments to support this type of cross-campus work. State-funded initiatives like the K–16 Collaboratives have provided flexible funding to make it possible in places like Los Angeles. But sustained, dedicated funding is key to turning localized innovation into statewide reforms that reach all Californians. With the state’s Cradle-to-Career Data System, the new Master Plan for Career Education and proposed Education Interagency Council, California has an opportunity to embed these lessons statewide.

    Los Angeles is fortunate in that it has a coalition of education leaders willing to cut through the bureaucracy and advance change for the well-being of students. It’s taken data sharing, relationship building, intermediaries and a creative blend of funding, but our students deserve systems that work. Campuses deserve resources to improve them. By aligning funding, policy, practice and partnership, we can ensure their success—and, in turn, the prosperity of our communities and our state.

    Adam Gottlieb is the director of postsecondary strategy and policy at UNITE-LA. 

    Source link

  • The post-16 pivot: why higher education needs to lean into the skills revolution

    The post-16 pivot: why higher education needs to lean into the skills revolution

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr. Ismini Vasileiou, Associate Professor at De Montfort University.

    The government’s new Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper reframes how the UK prepares people for work, learning, and life. It promises a simpler, more coherent system built around quality, parity of esteem, and progression – introducing new V-Levels, reforming Level 3 and below qualifications, and setting out clearer routes into higher education and skilled employment.

    Within it there is an unmistakable message for universities: higher education is no longer a separate tier but a partner in a joined-up skills ecosystem.

    This direction of travel strongly echoes the recommendations of the Cyber Workforce of the Future white paper, which called for a unified national skills taxonomy, stronger coordination between education and employers, and consistent frameworks for developing technical talent. The government’s post-16 reforms, though broader in scope, now seeks to achieve at system level what the cyber sector has already begun to pilot.

    Reimagining pathways: from fragmentation to flow

    At the heart of the White Paper lies the ambition to create “a seamless system where every learner can progress, without duplication or dead ends.” The proposed V-Levels for 16-19-year-olds aim to sit alongside A-Levels, replacing hundreds of overlapping technical qualifications and creating a nationally recognised route into both higher technical and academic study.

    Reforms to Level 2 and entry-level qualifications will introduce new “Foundation Programmes” that build essential skills and prepare learners for work or further study. Alongside these, stepping-stone qualifications in English and Mathematics will replace automatic GCSE resits, acknowledging that linear repetition has failed to deliver progress for many young people.

    The emphasis on simplified, stackable routes reflects the very principles behind the Cyber Workforce of the Future model, which proposed interoperable learning pathways connecting schools, further education, higher education, and industry within a single skills continuum. What began as a sector-specific call for alignment in cyber is now being written into national policy.

    Higher education’s new context

    The White Paper links post-16 reform directly to the Industrial Strategy and to Skills England’s mission to align learning with labour-market demand. For universities, several themes stand out:

    • Progression and parity: Higher education is expected to work together with further education and employers to ensure that learners completing V-Levels and higher technical qualifications can progress seamlessly into Level 4, 5, and 6 provision.
    • Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs): The expansion of HTQs in growth areas such as AI, cyber security, and green technology positions universities as key co-developers and deliverers of technical education.
    • Quality and accountability: The Office for Students will have powers to limit recruitment to poor-quality courses and tie tuition-fee flexibility to demonstrable outcomes, reinforcing the need for robust progression and employability data.
    • Lifelong learning and modularity: The commitment to the Lifelong Learning Entitlement demands interoperability of credits across further education and higher education – another concept long championed in the cyber-skills ecosystem.

    Taken together, these reforms require universities to move beyond disciplinary silos and become brokers of opportunity – enabling flexible, lifelong learning rather than simply delivering three-year degrees.

    From strategy to delivery: lessons from cyber that can scale

    The Cyber Workforce of the Future paper provides a live example of how the government’s post-16 vision can be delivered in practice. Its framework rests on three transferable pillars:

    1. Unified skills taxonomy – mapping qualifications and competencies against occupational standards to create a common language for education and industry.
    2. Education – industry bridge – aligning curriculum design and placements to real-world demand through structured partnerships between universities, FE colleges, and employers.
    3. Inclusive pipeline development – embedding equity and access by designing pathways that work for diverse learners and career changers, not just traditional entrants.

    These principles are not unique to cyber; they represent a template for how any technical or digital field can align with the White Paper’s objectives. The challenge now is scaling this joined-up approach nationally across disciplines – from advanced manufacturing to health tech and green energy.

    Six priorities for universities

    1. Redefine admissions and progression routes
      Recognise new qualifications such as V-Levels and HTQs as rigorous, valued entry points to higher education.
    2. Co-design regional skills ecosystems
      Partner with futher education colleges, local authorities, and industry to map regional growth sectors and align provision accordingly.
    3. Develop flexible, modular curricula
      Build stackable learning blocks that learners can access and re-enter throughout their careers under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.
    4. Co-create with employers
      Move from consultation to collaboration, embedding placements, apprenticeships, and micro-credentials that reflect labour-market demand.
    5. Support learner transition
      Provide structured academic and digital-skills support for students from vocational or stepping-stone routes.
    6. Measure outcomes transparently
      Track progression, attainment, and employability by qualification route to evidence value and inform continuous improvement.

    Opportunities and risks

    The White Paper’s success will depend on genuine partnership between universities, further education providers, and employers. Without coordination, the new structure could replicate old hierarchies – leaving V-Levels or technical routes seen as second-tier options. Similarly, tighter regulation must not deter universities from widening participation or admitting learners who require additional support.

    The cyber-skills sector demonstrates what can work when these risks are managed: clear frameworks, shared standards, and collaborative delivery that bridges academic and technical domains. Replicating this across disciplines will require sustained investment and policy stability, not short-term pilots.

    A new social contract for tertiary education

    The Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper represents a genuine reset for tertiary education – one that values technical excellence, lifelong learning, and regional growth alongside academic achievement.

    Its goals mirror those already embedded within the Cyber Workforce of the Future initiative: building a national system where education and employment are continuous, mutually reinforcing stages of one journey. The cyber model shows that when universities act as integrators –  connecting further education, employers, and government – policy ambitions translate into measurable workforce outcomes.

    What began as a sector-specific experiment can now serve as a blueprint for system-wide reform. If universities across all disciplines embrace this pivot, they can help turn the White Paper’s vision into reality – a cohesive, agile, and inclusive skills ecosystem ready for the future economy.

    Source link

  • Can You Keep a Secret? – Teaching in Higher Ed

    Can You Keep a Secret? – Teaching in Higher Ed

    This post is one of many, related to my participation in Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery Workshop.

    The Medium: The “Smart” Phone

    Shhhh… Don’t tell anyone, but our 13 year-old son will likely be getting his first “smart” phone for Christmas this year. I don’t think he has ever read my blog, so we should be good until December. As long as you cooperate with this secret surprise.

    I remember reading a few years back that the average child in the United States gets a phone at the age of 11. That seemed really early to me then. By the time Christmas rolls around, he will be about a month away from turning 14, which seems awfully late.

    Our son would agree.

    He tells us that he and one other guy in school are the only kids without a phone at this point. This may sound like a stereotypical story of woe that young people tell their parents to let them have something. But when we discuss the subject, there’s a common theme:

    What he really wants is a camera, disguised as a phone.

    A primary driver for his wanting the camera and messaging functionality is his upcoming middle school Washington DC trip in the Spring. When I tossed the idea around of getting him a camera, instead, he had no interest in that, though. Dave and I have talked a lot about it and figure this is a good time for him to get a phone and we’ve started our discussions about how we want to handle that, as parents.

    Dave and I talk more about these tensions in the second half of the video we recorded of us unboxing and playing with Justin Shaffer’s Alignment: A Course Design Deck.

    We also link in the video’s notes to the parent resources from The Social Institute, which are recommended by the academic leadership at our kids’ school. Now, on to why I’m bringing up smart phones in this particular post.

    McLuhan’s Media Tetrad

    Jarche introduces those of us participating in his Personal Knowledge Mastery Workshop to McLuhan’s Media Tetrad this week. I’ve seen the diagram on Jarche’s blog, before, but never slowed myself down enough to spend time soaked in it, like I have today.

    A diamond-shaped diagram illustrating McLuhan’s media tetrad. The center diamond is labeled “Medium.” Four surrounding diamonds describe its effects: the top says “Obsolesces — a previous medium,” the right says “Retrieves — a much older medium,” the bottom says “Reverses — its properties when extended to its limits,” and the left says “Extends — a human property.” The image is adapted from jarche.com

     

    Here’s my best, novice’s understanding of the framework:

    It starts with a new medium.

    McLuhan posits through his Laws of Media that every new medium results in four effects. Jarche explains that under McLuhan’s laws, each new medium:

    Extends a human property,

    Obsolesces the previous medium (& makes it a luxury good)

    Retrieves a much older medium &

    Reverses its properties when pushed to its limits

    When we take time to understand what happens with new media, we can put in place steps to negate or minimize the negative effects. Ample examples exist of ways that social media extends humans’ voices, while ultimately making healthy, human-to-human conversation obsolete. Then, our more tribal affiliations can kick in (Twitter, anyone?) and we reverse into “populism and demagoguery,” according to Jarche’s example.

    Jarche writes:

    The reversals are already evident — corporate surveillance, online orthodoxy, life as reality TV, constant outrage to sell advertising. The tetrads give us a common framework to start addressing the effects of social media pushed to their limits. Once you see these effects, you cannot un-see them.

    My Example

    As I mentioned earlier, I’ve selected the “smart” phone as the medium to analyze.

    Here’s my attempt at the tetrad:

    A diamond-shaped diagram showing McLuhan’s media tetrad applied to the “smart” phone. The center diamond says “smart phone.” The four surrounding diamonds explain its effects: top—“Obsolesces: ‘home’ phone and other single-purpose devices”; right—“Retrieves: the village commons”; bottom—“Reverses: disconnection, distraction, and mental health issues”; left—“Extends: connection opportunities and access to information.” The image is labeled “adapted from jarche.com.”

    Jarche suggested that we first explore what the technology enhances and then what it obsolesces. That felt easy and hard, simultaneously. Today’s “smart” phones contain so many features that the definition of what this technology is can be blurred. Our son, for example, has understandably brought up that when adults raise concerns about phones, they can often be actually talking about social media (which he presently has zero interest in).

    The “smart” phone:

    • Extends: connection opportunities and access to information
    • Obsolesces: “home” phone + other single-purpose devices

    As Jarche predicted, these two elements of the tetrad were fairly easy to identify (though I could have chosen to go in a bunch of different directions). I can still recall what it felt like to go with my brother to a convenience store that was about two miles from our house and involved climbing down a super steep, dirt hill. The idea that I could have called my Mom to ask her to pick us up, so we could have avoided the steep hill on the way home would not have occurred to me at the time.

    That’s despite the fact that we watched Star Trek as a family and they had these transporter beams that would transmit the characters in the show from the starship and a planet’s surface.

     

    Leonard Nimoy William Shatner Star Trek 1968Leonard Nimoy William Shatner Star Trek 1968

    The idea of extending our home phone to one that could be carried around in my pocket (if women’s pants had pockets, that is…) would have been a welcome idea to me. Then, there are all the other single-purpose devices that the “smart” phone can take the place of, such as:

    • 📞 Landline phone
    • 📷 Camera
    • 🎧 MP3 player
    • 🗺️ GPS
    • Alarm clock
    • 📺 Video player
    • 💾 Disk or hard drive
    • 📝 Notepad
    • 🧮 Calculator
    • 💡 Flashlight
    • 💳 Wallet
    • 🧭 Compass
    • ✉️ Mail service

    I could have kept going with that list for a long time and just be getting started.

    Productive Struggle

    Cognitive psychologists talk about how helpful productive struggle can be in the learning process. As Jarche thought we might, I had trouble with what the smart phone might retrieve a much older medium, in terms of the way I had anchored the framework with the other two components (extends and obsolesces). I then moved my focus over to the reverses portion of the tetrad and thought how it was the polar opposite (disconnection) of what it promises to extend (connection).

    For the retrieves part, I kept getting stuck between two, broad ideas: the pubic square or the commons.

    I considered how the promise of today’s phones as the device to connect us with others and with information winds up making loneliness more likely and seeding a potential decline in mental health. I also fixated on how the “extends, obsolesces, and reverses” descriptions I had come up with were more geared toward individuals, yet the promise of the common good is only possible when we come together in community.

    I would like to learn more about the history of the public square, as well as regarding the commons in medieval and early modern Europe. I’m also intrigued to keep my learning going regarding “the commons” in digital contexts (Wikipedia, Wikis, Creative Commons, etc.). There are also a lot of places I continue to want to explore about the attention economy and surveillance capitalism.

    Until next time, when I share my reflections from Jarche’s Fake News lesson. That should be fun, ehh? Nothing going on there in the world, right? 🫠 

    Source link