Free Digital Textbooks!

By Adriana Garcia

On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed several bills to assist college students (see Huckabee, 2012).  Among them were Senate Bills (SB) 1052 and 1053 which will provide free digital textbooks via an online open source library to lower-division, undergraduate students attending a California Community College (CCC), a California State University (CSU), or a University of California (UC) campus.

Though the open source library has the potential to expand in the future, at present, not all textbooks will be available in the free digital format. Fifty textbooks will be added to the California Open Source Digital Library (S. 1052, 2012). According to SB 1052 (2012), the books will be selected by a council of nine faculty members comprising of three representatives from each of the CCC, CSU, and UC systems, respectively. Textbook selection will be based on courses with the most enrolled students, with special consideration to subjects that require expensive textbooks and whose content is similar at all three postsecondary systems (S. 1052, 2012).

The implementation of both bills is dependent upon the amount of state and private funding that can be allocated for them and the amount of support they receive from the CCCs, CSUs, and UCs (S. 1052, 2012). The bills are not mandates so it is up to each college and university system to decide if they want to participate in the provision of digital textbooks and other online educational materials. According to the bills, faculty will continue to have the flexibility of assigning the textbooks of their choosing and are not obligated to use the free versions for the courses they teach (S. 1052, 2012; S. 1053, 2012). Institutions that decide to participate would be required to ensure that the dissemination and use of these textbooks do not infringe on copyright laws and are accessible to disabled students in alternative formats (S. 1052, 2012).

In a time of budget cuts to higher education and tuition increases, the bills provide support to students who are struggling to manage their higher education finances. Darrell Steinberg, the SB 1052 and SB 1053 author, explains, “Many students are paying more than $1,000 every year on their textbooks, sometimes having to choose between buying the books they need or paying for food and other living expenses” (as cited in McGreevy, 2012).  Consequently, providing students with textbooks guarantees that all students will have access to course readings and reduce the financial strain they experience. In addition, technologically-savvy millennials will likely welcome the online resources because of the convenience of accessing information anywhere via their laptops and other devices.

Undoubtedly, students will benefit greatly from these free digital resources; however, many questions can be posed regarding the implementation of both bills. What do publishing companies think about providing students with free digital textbooks and how willing are they to be a part of this project? How will the availability of free textbooks affect student financial aid? Will certain majors or subject areas be favored by the council in selecting the textbooks to include in the digital library? It will be interesting to see how higher education institutions in California will address the inherent challenges providing these free resources will present.

References

Huckabee, C. (2012, September 28). Calif. governor signs bills giving digital textbooks and other

help to students. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/calif-governor-signs-bills-to-provide-digital-textbooks-and-other-help-for-students/49742

McGreevy, P. (2012, September 27). Free digital textbooks offered as Gov. Jerry Brown signs

bills. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/free-digital-textbooks-to-be-made-available-after-gov-jerry-brown-signs-bills.html

Public postsecondary education: California open education resources council, S. 1052. (2012).

Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1052&search_keywords=

Public postsecondary education: California digital open source library, S. 1053. (2012).

Retrieved from

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1053&search_keywords=

A Scientific Approach To Affirmative Action by Sarah Esquivel

              Across the country, racial minority groups continue to attend college in disproportionate numbers compared to whites (Solórzano & Ornelas, 2004). According to the California Department of Education, minority students comprised 68% of the K-12 public population in 2006-2007 (Kimura-Walsh, Yakamura, Griffin, & Allen, 2009). However, 65% of white students enroll in college compared to only 53% of African-Americans, and 49% of Latinos (Carnevale & Strohl, 2010).

            Several scholars believe that the underrepresentation of racial minorities in higher education is due to issues of access and inequality in education that begin before the admissions process (Solórzano & Ornelas, 2004). For example, low-income students of color—mostly concentrated at urban schools—are less likely to receive adequate information about college preparation than their affluent peers (Kimura-Walsh et al., 2009). Admission to a selective four-year college or institution heavily relies on test scores and coursework. A popular criticism of standardized testing as a predictor of success in college is that its cultural bias adversely affects students of color (Contreras, 2005). Latino students continue to perform worse on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) than their white and Asian counterparts (Contreras, 2005). Performance on the SAT depends on the quality of instruction in high school, as access to academically rigorous courses prepares students for the exam (Yosso et al., 2004). With all of this overwhelming evidence that the educational playing field is not level, affirmative action should be an obvious solution, right?

            As with any issue related to race, affirmative action continues to be a contentious issue. In less than two weeks, the Supreme Court will decide on the Fisher v. University of Texas case, which could change the landscape of admissions dramatically. Abigail Fisher, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. She is currently suing the institution because she argues that the use of race in its admissions decisions is unconstitutional. The American Educational Research Association (AREA) uses scientific research in its amicus brief, which urges the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in college admissions. The brief is co-signed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Sociological Association, the American Statistical Association, the Association for the Study of Higher Education, the Law and Society Association, the Linguistic Society of America, and the National Academy of Engineering. 

            Although it does not fix the educational “pipeline”, affirmative action in college admissions increases compositional diversity. AREA proposes that promoting diversity on campus is a “compelling government issue” (Tisley, 2012). Proponents of affirmative action hope that the Supreme Court will agree, as it did in the University of Michigan case where diversity on campus was ruled of critical importance.

            Critics of affirmative action believe that we live in a post-racial society, and that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional. Some people argue that it unfairly favors students that are not academically prepared. Affirmative action even “victimizes” them. Unfortunately, we do not live in a post-racial society. Racism still exists. As long as racial inequality persists in wealth and educational attainment, changes in admissions procedures must be made to achieve educational, social, and economic equality.

Carnevale, A., & Strohl, J. (2010). How increasing college access is increasing inequality, and        what to do about it. In Kahlenberg, R. (Ed.). Rewarding strivers: Helping low-income students succeed in college. New York: The Century Foundation Press.

Contreras, F. (2005). Access, achievement, and social capital: Standardized exams and the Latino college-bound population. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, (4) 3, 197-214

Kimura-Walsh, E., Yakamura, E., Griffin, K., & Allen, W. (2009). Acheiving the college dream?    Examining disparities in access to college information among high achieving and non- high achieving Latina students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, (8)3, 298-215.  

      
Solórzano, D., & Ornelas, A. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/o placement and African     American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. The High School  Journal, (87) 3, 15-26. 

Tisley, A. (2012). Affirmative on affirmative action. Inside HigherEd. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/28/social-scientists-defend-affirmative-action-fisher-v-university-texas

Yosso, T., Parker, L., Solórzano, D., & Lynn, M. (2004). From Jim Crow to affirmative action     and back again: A critical race discussion of racialized rationales and access to higher education. Review of research in education, (28) 2, 1-25

College Readiness: Communicating Expectations For Success – Jessica Liebert

What comes to mind when you hear the term “college readiness”?  Perhaps you envision a straight A academically astute student; maybe a mature individual who falls on an advanced scale of identity development; or perhaps just a bad case of senioritis…someone who is just really, really ready to go to college.  According to Karp & Bork (2012), academic skills seem to be the most widely accepted definition of college readiness.  In response to a national initiative to increase college readiness among high school students, professionals are pushing to improve high school students’ academic skills (Karp & Bork, 2012).  However Karp and Bork (2012) believe the focus is misplaced.  In their article Clear Expectations of Readiness (2012), which is based on their study They never Told Me What To Expect, So I didn't know What to Do: Defining and Clarifying the Role of a Community College Student (2012) Karp and Bork discuss why strong academic skills do not necessarily translate to college readiness, particularly for community college students, and how we can readjust our focus in order to maximize student success.

Non-academic skills, behaviors, and attitudes are equally critical to student success as academic preparedness (Karp & Bork, 2012).  According to Karp and Bork (2012), faculty have high expectations for students when it comes to “academic habits, cultural know-how, the ability to balance school and other demands, and engaging in help-seeking behavior” (para. 4).  It is common knowledge that college students are held to higher expectations than they are held to at the high school level.  However, Karp and Bork (2012), find that lack of communication, not students’ inability to live up to the high demands, is at the root of students’ struggles.  Their study finds that students struggle, and even withdraw from college, because many faculty do not adequately communicate their expectations and demands to incoming students.

Ultimately student success is a two way street. While students must take initiative and seek help if they are struggling, faculty must clearly articulate their expectations from the start.  The first year of college is filled with many transitions – including an academic adjustment – and in order to succeed, students must have a decent understanding of what their professors expect of them.  Students may benefit if faculty create uniform non-academic and behavioral expectation guidelines for all students, and engage first- year students in an educational conversation at the start of their first semester.  Student affairs staff can also orient students on college expectations and support services/resources at the start of their first year.  They can host “college expectations” seminars, or acquaint students through residential education, freshman seminars, or provide tips and forums during orientation.  

Furthermore, it is important that all professionals possess a strong understanding of the generation of students they are working with (Tambascia, 2012).  The current generation of college students, “the Millennials,” come from a more sheltered background, crave a bit more guidance and praise, and are also under a great amount of academic pressure (Tambascia, 2012).  Faculty and staff must understand generational characteristics and adjust their behavior in order to help students succeed.   

In sum, a straight A, AP, cum-lade student may not actually be “college ready.”  Communication is one of the most crucial pieces of the puzzle to student success.  Ultimately even the most capable student cannot succeed if he or she does not know what exactly their professors expect.  Faculty must clearly articulate their expectations to students, and student affairs staff can collaborate with faculty to further emphasize the new set of demands.  Professors, practitioners, and students themselves all play a critical role in students’ success, and each must take a proactive stance in order to nurture students’ growth and help them succeed.

References

Karp, M.M., & Bork, R.H. (2012). They never told me what to expect, so I didn’t know what to

do: Defining and clarifying the role of a community college student. Community college research center, 47. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID= 1126

Karp, M.M., & Bork, R.H. (2012). Clear expectations of readiness. Inside Higher Ed.

Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered. com/views/2012/09/18/essay-calls-inclusion-non-academic-skills-college-readiness-efforts

Tambascia, T. (2012). Developmental student advising. Presented at Advising 101a training

session at the University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA.

The Art of Residential Education

By Jess Evora

Jess Evora is an M.Ed. candidate at USC's Rossier School of Education.

Last night I was fortunate to have the opportunity to sit down for dinner with a few friends and Dr. Varun Soni,  Dean of Religious Life at USC.  Dean Soni provided an intimate group of students with a few words of wisdom as we consumed a delicious meal in the private backroom of our dining hall.

“The most successful people are not afraid to fail.  They actually fail more because they try more. This is what makes them successful,” Dr. Soni explained, as I prepared to devour a plate of red velvet cake.

Dean Soni then facilitated a motivating conversation about religious life, spirituality, and the pursuit of our life goals.  I couldn’t help but to realize how incredibly fortunate I was to have had the opportunity to participate in such a meaningful conversation.  The beauty of it all, however, is that I did not have to leave my place of residence.  Instead, the scholarship came to me.  This is what we here at USC call residential education. 

USC’s Office of Residential Education accomplished a landmark goal this year.  It has transformed every first-year dorm building into a residential college, which can be defined as a building in which a faculty member (called a faculty master) resides in order to assist in fostering a residential community of  scholarship outside the classroom.  The department also partners with faculty staff mentors, who do not live in the residential hall, but do collaborate with the department’s staff to provide programming to the residents (all USC students are welcomed to participate in the programming, regardless of living status).

Residential education (also known as residence life) is a student affairs department that serves an extremely important role in the success of college students, especially those in their first-year.  Johnson & Cuvins (1996) stated “…residence halls have a positive impact on students in a number of important areas, including grades, persistence, satisfaction with the institution, psychosocial development, self-esteem, critical thinking, involvement in extracurricular activities, and graduation” (p.72).  Additional research has confirmed these findings (Zhao, 2004; LaNasa, 2007; Schudde, 2011).  

Staff members within residential education are able to interact with residents in the comfort of their own home (campus home, that is!).  The most authentic interactions take place within the communities that are formed within the residential halls (Johnson & Cuvins, 1996), and the opportunities for academic and personal development are endless.

“Much of your learning will take place outside the classroom” Dean Soni informed the group of fully engaged students as they consumed their last bites of velvety goodness.  USC’s implementation of residential colleges is their effort to ensure that this idea continues to ring true on this campus.

As a graduate staff member within the Office of Residential Education (working in North Residential College), I have developed a great relationship with our faculty master, Dr. Ed McCann, professor of Philosophy and English here at USC.  It was Professor McCann (affectionately call “Ed” by our residents) who invited Dean Soni as a guest for our weekly faculty master dinner.  It was also Professor McCann who fired up the grill for our game-day barbeque last weekend. 

It is a beautiful thing that we have here at USC, a trend that is spreading rapidly to campuses across the country.  Each campus may tweak things to their liking, or find creative ways to provide an educational environment within their dorms.  However, one thing stays consistent within residential education: No matter how you go about it, you live and you learn.

References

Johnson, W. G., Cuvins, K. M. (1996). ). Strategies for enhancing student learning in residence halls.
             New Directions for Student Services, 1996(75), 69-82.

doi:10.1002/ss.37119967508 

LaNasa, S. M. (2007).  The impact of on-campus student growth on first-year student

engagement and success. Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 941-966.

doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9056-5

Schudde, L. T. (2011). The causal effect of campus residency on college student retention. The

Review of Higher Education, 34(4), 581-610. doi:10.1353/rhe.2011.0023

Zhao, C. (2004).  Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement.   
            Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.  
            doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de