Our military responded to a series of natural disasters this year.  In March, through Operation Tomodachi (Japanese for “friendship”) the Marines, Navy, and Air Force offered humanitarian and disaster relief assistance to the Japanese people affected by an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that killed more than 15,000 and left millions more homeless.  Marine helicopter units delivered thousands of pounds of rice, bread, and other food items to the hardest hit areas.  In addition, a significant number of American naval ships responded including the USS McCampbell, the USS Curtis, the USS Mustin, and the USS Ronald Reagan. 

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) moved into action when a series of severe storms this past Spring plagued the nation’s mid-section.  Tornadoes, floods, and other significant weather events left thousands in a desperate state.  The USACE worked diligently to ensure the safety of structures following those storms and to assist in meeting the basic needs of those impacted by the devastation. 

In the wake of devastating Hurricane Irene which pummeled the East Coast in late August,  National Guard and Coast Guard forces were deployed to the hardest hit areas on the East Coast within hours of the storm making landfall.  Select Army personnel were also involved in relief and rescue efforts.  The nation applauded the responsiveness of the military and FEMA personnel after Irene, commending the organizational structure for making necessary changes from lessons learned after Hurricane Katrina.  America’s men and women in uniform also provided assistance to “man-made” events, many that bolstered the cause of freedom and liberty around the world.

In March when the United Nations intervened to uphold a “no-fly zone” in Libya following Muammar Gaddafi’s crack down on anti-government rebels, the United States military was on hand to provide assistance.  US ships (in conjunction with British vessels) fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at key Libyan air and ground defense systems.  With the assistance of American and other coalition forces, the people of Libya were ultimately successful in overthrowing the long-seated military dictator last month.

In May, American troops fulfilled a promise made to the American people on September 11, 2001 by capturing and killing notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden.  After months of gathering intelligence, US Special Forces infiltrated bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  The terrorist was ultimately killed in the ensuing firefight though no US service members were lost.  In the aftermath of one of the most significant military operations in American history, President Obama applauded the diligence and commitment of the American armed forces.  In his nine minute address to the American people, President Obama told the nation that, “justice has been done.”

In the midst of these noble efforts and heroic accomplishments, however, the military suffered tremendous losses this past year.  August 6th marked the deadliest day for American forces in Afghanistan since that war began more than a decade ago.  On that day alone, thirty American troops, mostly elite Navy SEALs (some reported to have been part of the bin Laden mission), were killed when insurgents shot down a Chinook helicopter in which they were flying to aid a team of Army Rangers.  The entire month of August saw the loss of 66 US service members, making it the deadliest month for US troops since the war began. 

In total, 6,314 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.  438 of those troops were killed this year and, tragically, a number of whom were AMU students.  When I learn of the death of one of our students, it brings into perspective the unsung heroism of our nation’s military men and women and the veterans who served before them.  To everyone serving our country or who has served our country in the past, thank you for all that you do and have done to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy at home and abroad. We salute your dedication, commitment, and sacrifices.

There have been numerous studies about the difficulties that adult students encounter in completing their college degrees while working, raising a family, being a caregiver, etc.  Graduates attending the reception the night before the ceremony shared some of their stories with each other, the faculty and staff members in attendance, and with me.  Their stories are inspiring.  The faculty, staff, and I are proud of our students and our graduates for their professional, personal, and academic accomplishments and wish all of our graduates the very best in their future endeavors.

I clicked on the link and found an interesting post where Dr. Strong shares his teaching philosophy.  He originally wrote the piece for his application for a tenure-track position at the university where he works as a full-time visiting professor.  You can read his post yourself or my synopsis below.  Either way, I think it is worth sharing.

Dr. Strong has a unique and varied teaching background.  His first teaching opportunities were with the Army where the teaching philosophy focused on the notion that only three teaching points could be absorbed and retained by students in an hour-long class.  From the Army, Dr. Strong went to INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France which uses a teaching style similar to that found at the Harvard Business School:  individual instructors are required to undertake extensive preparation, often in conjunction with other professors teaching the same or similar classes.  His time at Tulane, as he explains, brought a very different teaching experience.  Dr. Strong writes, “…I spent 34 years at Tulane, a school whose culture held that the instructor was – once the classroom doors were closed – answerable to no one for what went on in the classroom.”  From these experiences, Dr. Strong’s teaching philosophy has settled into a somewhat eclectic and, by his own admission, ever-evolving one.

Dr. Strong notes that “students are the raw material that we work with and making sure that the ‘student can learn’ means understanding the capabilities and the backgrounds of the students in a course.”  He blames the cliché of dwindling student attention spans for convincing students over the last 15 years that they do in fact have shorter attention spans; according to Dr. Strong, this cliché has provided a convenient excuse for students who perhaps really only lack motivation or direction in their academic pursuits.  This point was of particular interest to me considering the online nature of APUS degrees. 

I would argue that online courses require an added level of motivation and dedication from the student.  Since there are no physical classrooms or face-to-face interactions with professors and other students, APUS students must be that much more mindful of their time management and information retention.  Perhaps online courses even provide an advantage for those who feel that they do in fact have a dwindling attention span: if an APUS student finds that they are losing focus on a reading assignment or online lecture, for example, he or she can simply put down the assignment, refocus and continue at his or her own pace.  I recently viewed a news report about Blackberry users and the issue regarding attention span interruptions.  The reporter interviewed researchers who stated that the interruptions caused by messages being received to the Blackberry are disruptive and distracting.  At the same time, the reporter quoted the researchers as stating that eventually, the Blackberry user becomes acclimated to the disruptions and learns to work through them.  Based on this research, I am not sure that I agree with Ed Strong that student attention rates are dwindling as much as I believe that there are many more things to keep them distracted inside the classroom.  However, I believe that the combination of a motivated student with a motivated instructor will lead to a satisfactory outcome every time.

Dr. Strong also discusses his approach to identifying the most relevant and worthwhile course information, a point I also found quite interesting.  According to his post, over the past couple of decades, textbooks have taken on an all-inclusive nature that often leaves them overflowing with information, much of which is not directly relevant to a particular professor’s course content or objective.  With this in mind, Dr. Strong has developed his own supplemental course materials that focus on the topics he finds most relevant.  This obviously puts an additional burden on the professor who must glean the most worthwhile pieces of content while being mindful of the (actual or perceived) shortened attention spans of today’s students.  Given that the world’s intellectual and printed material is doubling every year to year and a half, this seems like a better practice than relying on a textbook that may be outdated shortly after it has been published.

The section of Dr. Strong’s statement on his teaching philosophy that is most interesting to me is his discussion of grading systems and why he feels that they are largely irrelevant. Dr. Strong explains that in 1971 while at INSEAD, he took part in a comprehensive review of the school’s grading rubric.  Dr. Strong writes, “As a result of that experience, I became and remain an advocate of classifying people into three groups: The upper sixth [who will become candidates for honors], the middle two-thirds [who are in no danger of failing], and the lower sixth [who become candidates for probation or termination].”  Based on such a rubric, specific grades (A, B, etc.) do seem largely irrelevant.  He does concede, however, that grades and graded exercises are significant motivators for students.  Perhaps for this reason alone, it is worthwhile to maintain a traditional grading system.  When one considers the issues of dwindling (whether truly or simply perceived) attention span and overwhelming levels of information available in textbooks and various other sources, a traditional grading system seems to be somewhat necessary.

The final section of Dr. Strong’s statement discusses the evolution of his teaching philosophy vis-à-vis the rapidly accelerating development of new technologies which can be utilized in (and, often instead of) the classroom.  He notes that he has been integrating the use of technologies in his classrooms for some time now and expresses some disappointment that he will likely miss the exciting opportunities that technological advances are sure to bring to education in the coming decades.  Technology in the classroom is the cornerstone of the APUS model and I applaud Dr. Strong for his use of such technologies in his brick and mortar classroom.  There can be little doubt that he is correct that for all the advances we’ve seen in recent decades, technological advances will continue at an accelerating pace.  I believe that students and the higher education community as a whole will surely benefit from such advances even if they do require us to tweak our teaching philosophies a bit.  That said, if Ed wants to tape a few of his lectures, I would be glad to post them on iTunes University.  Technology may enable better learning for distance learning programs as well as traditional programs, but I would rather combine those technologies with a proven professor like Ed anytime.  Thanks for the memories and the lesson, Ed!