Search results

The global proliferation of distance learning programs has become a major phenomenon of our times. So rapid is the growth rate of distance learning options, that statistics on them are rendered out-of-date at the moment of publication. As soon as innovations in media and automation technologies have appeared, their new capabilities have been adapted to distance learning applications, fueling the growth of distance learning programs, and providing marketing tools for the promotion of newly upgraded or newly created distance learning programs and institutions. Rapid growth in a highly competitive market has led to the duplication and overlapping of new distance learning options both within institutions and across institutional and geographical boundaries.

In 2004 and 2007, the Kauffman Foundation awarded 18 universities and colleges $3–5 million dollars each to develop radiant model entrepreneurship education programs and campus-wide entrepreneurial ecosystems. Grant recipients were required to have a senior level administrator to oversee the program who reported to the Provost, President, or Chancellor. Award recipients included Syracuse University (2007) and the University of Rochester (2004). Cornell was not a Kauffman campus. This chapter explores three case studies in the radiant model of university-wide entrepreneurship education as deployed at Cornell University, The University of Rochester, and Syracuse University. The authors examine the history, accelerators, and challenges of the radiant model of university-wide entrepreneurship education.

In this chapter, we examine the program- and university-level infrastructure to support learners in a large online Master of Science in Computer Science program. The program is novel due to its cost and size: total tuition for the entire degree is around $7,000, and to date, it has enrolled over 25,000 total students with 11,000 enrolled in spring 2021. Prior research has largely focused on the program’s administration of individual classes, but in this work, we examine the administration of the program at higher levels: at the program level, including its academic advisers, career counselors, and alumni relations, and at the university level where it integrates with on-campus infrastructure for academic integrity, student advocacy, and disability accommodations. We close by offering three guidelines for implementing similar programs at other schools, taking into consideration the full range of experience in building the program.

Diversity is a somewhat amorphous concept; however, it is crucial to our growth as a nation, especially the growth and personal development of college and university students. Most college and university campuses are diverse societies, composed of individuals of many ethnicities, religions, ages, sexual identities, and physical abilities. It is not hard to see the diversity on a campus; people of different backgrounds and cultures comprise the vast majority of the campus population. The University Diversity and Inclusion Office commonly has a vice president, an associate provost, or chief diversity officer for diversity who serves as the senior administrative head. This leader has the responsibility to provide educational activities and programs systematically.

This chapter discusses the role that the University Diversity and Inclusion Office plays in educating the campus about global diversity awareness and inclusivity excellence. The chapter outlines a systematic and flexible approach to addressing the demographic shift that is occurring on college and university campuses and how best to deal with campus bias incidents. The components of the University Diversity and Inclusion Office strategic direction are examined with particular attention focused on the role of the office, its leadership, and the mission of the institution. A section on proposed successful campus-wide diversity initiatives is included as examples of an essential endeavor that enhances campus diversity. This organizational structure has won a national (HEED) Higher Education Excellent in Diversity Award.

The use of campuses as living, learning labs for sustainability education, and the advancement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is a growing trend at post-secondary institutions across North America. Post-secondary institutions are embracing this approach to advance sustainability and the SDGs both on- and off-campus and to cultivate the next generation of sustainability leaders. Recognizing the diverse stages of living lab program maturation between campuses, and the fact that living lab practitioners are often working in isolation, the Campus as Lab Community of Practice (CaL CoP) was created to enable peer-to-peer learning and to catalyze the development and potential of living lab programs toward meeting the SDGs in a coordinated fashion. The CaL CoP members have identified the opportunity to use a collective approach to advance the SDGs on their home campuses. A collective approach enables CaL CoP members to account for their contributions to advancing the SDGs in a way that is relevant to their local context while highlighting the global impact of their actions. Challenges to utilizing this approach include collaborating remotely, resourcing, and maintaining momentum.

The location of entrepreneurship centers on university campuses has been the subject of debate as the traditional model of business school centers has been challenged by development of centralized structures. The purpose of this chapter is to explore some of the benefits and challenges when a center transitions from a college-based structure to one that is centrally controlled. This chapter provides a qualitative case study of the transition of an entrepreneurship center from a business college to a centralized model housed under a campus-wide office of research and innovation. It argues that a centralized entrepreneurship center can promote campus partnerships on programming, connect the center more effectively with other centralized resources, increase participation from students and faculty from a wider range of colleges, and provide a platform for cross-college collaboration. A key challenge can be the potential separation from faculty research and curriculum development.

The purpose of this chapter is to share the structure and strategies that institutions can use to transform the experience of students learning at a distance. Details on how one of the largest educational systems in the United States, the State University of New York (SUNY), reshaped the student online learning experience via the “Open SUNY” model will be described. Specific strategies for infusing existing models of support with new ways of thinking will be explained.

In particular, this chapter will explore the infrastructure of the Open SUNY model of collaboration, the use of the Open SUNY Institutional Readiness approach for preparing colleges to deliver quality online programming, and the unique Open SUNY+ Signature Element program for assessing the quality of online programming and support structures.

This chapter will also highlight the efforts of one campus, SUNY Canton, to leverage Open SUNY and take its signature element on student engagement to the next level. A case study on Canton will show how the campus incorporated online students in all aspects of campus life to reduce student isolation. Specific online student engagement strategies will be provided.

The authors use their university and its writing program as a case study to interrogate established wraparound support systems for foster youth and the role that additional, volunteer faculty – led support services can play in retention and graduation rates. This chapter first provides research on college-going foster youth in the United States. Then, it considers the foster youth population and established support programs at the University of California, Riverside. Next, this chapter reviews the benefits of faculty – student mentoring and tutoring, specifically in composition studies, and how those benefits can contribute to a successful college-going experience. The chapter then shifts to offering a model for those interested in establishing a similar program. Using business, communication, composition, education, and psychosocial theory to ground the discussion, the authors provide a detailed account of the proposal, implementation, and ongoing programmatic administration processes, including the rationale undergirding decision-making. Ultimately, they show how equitable supplemental academic support led by composition faculty can bridge the gap between existing foster youth services and outstanding needs, an innovative approach that relies on the natural mentoring relationships which organically evolve from faculty–student interaction.

Racial and ethnic diversity and the attendant challenges and benefits of multiculturalism in society are a worldwide phenomenon. As higher education is often the training ground for future social and political leaders, as well as the primary institution charged with the study of social problems, the educational benefits, and challenges of diversity in society are particularly relevant to institutions of higher learning. This chapter synthesizes the ongoing empirical research on the educational impact of racially and ethnically diverse university environments in a U.S. context and offers a framework of institutional practices based on that work to help administrators both respond to challenges and better harness-related benefits for all students.