Author: Erin Noelle Walton

Negotiated Rulemaking Reaches Consensus: An Overview of Processes, Issues, and Next Steps

By Erin Noelle Walton

April 12, 2019

6 Comments

In this first of several blogs dedicated to sharing the meaningful outcomes of the three-month negotiated rulemaking sessions, Cheryl Dowd and Russ Poulin announce some exciting news and provide an overall assessment of the process and results from these important sessions. Enjoy!

–Erin Walton, contract editor for WCET

Consensus was a surprise! That is right, the Department of Education 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking on Accreditation and Innovation ended in consensus, which means that every negotiator agreed on every issue.

When the rulemaking plan was first announced in August 2018, we reported that the proposed plan would include a wide-ranging set of issues. Concerns were raised that there were too many important issues for one rulemaking. We were as surprised as everyone else that 100% agreement by the negotiators was achieved in this rulemaking process. If they had not reached “consensus,” the Department would have been free to write the rules on these issues. The regulations agreed upon by the negotiators will be the proposed regulations offered to the public in the upcoming months.

This is the first of several posts focused on the outcomes of the three-month negotiated rulemaking sessions. Today we will start with an overall assessment of the process and results of the negotiated rulemaking session. We will then continue with posts on specific issues of interest to WCET members, State Authorization Network (SAN) members, and the technology-enhanced education community, at large.

PROCESS

To manage this long list of issues, the Department became creative in its development of an unprecedented rulemaking management plan that included three new elements.

Subcommittees.
First, the Department divided the issues into three subcommittees to research, discuss, and advise the main negotiated rulemaking committee. These subcommittees included: Distance Learning and Educational Innovation, TEACH Grants, and Faith-Based entities. Each month, the subcommittees met to discuss and find common ground on the issues. The findings and concerns were then reported to the main committee.

Department Proposed Specific Language Earlier in the Process
Second, the Department presented regulatory language at the start of the session in January to jump start the rulemaking. Historically, the initial session was reserved for negotiators to brainstorm on the issues. The Department made it clear during the Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee that the Department was open minded to discussion and changes to the Department’s initial proposed language.

Divided the Issue into Smaller “Buckets”
The third new element to the rulemaking management plan was the division of issues for the purpose of voting. You might think that the intentional division of issues to the subcommittees would be the same division of issues for the purpose of voting. Well, you would be wrong! The Department developed categories of issues which the Department referred to as “buckets.” The intention was to offer similar issues together for purposes of voting. This division was proposed in anticipation that the committee might be able to agree to some subset of issues, but not all the issues. Thus, the Department created the following three buckets:

Bucket 1: Accreditation, Definition of a Credit Hour, and Byrd Scholarship

34 CFR 600: General; Maintaining Eligibility; and Loss of Eligibility.
34 CFR 602: Definitions; Criteria for Recognition, The Recognition Process.
34 CFR 603.24: Criteria for State Agencies.

Bucket 2: TEACH Grant and Religious Freedom

34 CFR 686: General; Application Procedures; Determination of Awards, Administration of Grant Payments; Service and Repayment Obligations.
34 CFR 674, 675, 676, 682,685,690 and 694: Eligibility and Deferment Processes.

Bucket 3: Distance Education, State Authorization for Distance Education and Competency

34 CFR 600: General (including Definition of state authorization reciprocity agreements and state authorization regulations); Procedures for Establishing Eligibility; Maintaining Eligibility; Eligibility for Foreign Institutions (FFEL Programs).
34 CFR 668: General, Standards for Participation in Title IV, Student Eligibility, Institution and Financial Assistance Information for Students, Appeal Procedures for Audit Determinations and Program Review Determinations, Cash Management, Financial Responsibility.

Beating the Consensus Deadline Clock

Due to the number of issues and the inability to use some of the originally planned meeting times because of snow delays and cancellations, the negotiators on the main committee requested additional meeting times. The Department accepted the request and provided an additional three days of meetings at the end of the session. With that in mind, April 3, 2019 at 3pm Eastern Time was the time designated for completion of the negotiations and voting. The final day saw an early start with Bucket 2 reaching consensus before 11am. The negotiators essentially grabbed food to go and worked through lunch and reached consensus on Bucket 3 by 1pm. With only three minutes left on the clock, the negotiators beat the buzzer with consensus on Bucket 1. Therefore, the negotiators reached consensus on all issues presented by the Department.

ISSUES OF NOTE

Last week Russ Poulin shared the following quick highlights of important issues, with WCET members:

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity requires institutions to have processes in place through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in any course offered via distance education or correspondence is the same student who academically engages in the course or program. Removes the section of this rule that referenced log-ins or proctored exams.

Accreditation

There were many changes to accreditation. The Department sought to ease the path to allowing new accrediting agencies to enter the field, but they did not get everything they wanted.

Direct Assessment

Few institutions were involved in this alternative form of disbursing financial aid due to the complexity of the requirements. The process was simplified. Additionally, if an institution has one direct assessment program approved by the Secretary of Education, additional programs at the same credential level do not need to be approved by the Secretary.

Distance Education Notifications

A whole section on notifications for students in distance education programs was removed. However, several of those disclosures (e.g., refund policies, complaint procedures) are already required in another section of existing regulations.

Professional Licensure Disclosures

This has been expanded to ALL students in professional licensure programs, not just distance students.
Professional licensure programs will need to generally disclose on a website if they meet a state’s educational requirements, if they do not meet the requirements, or if they have not made a determination for a state.
Disclosures sent directly to students will be needed if the institution reports that they do not or cannot determine if they meet requirements.

Regular and Substantive Interaction

Much was done to try to define this under-defined concept and to allow more instructional modes to qualify…
- Instructor – What qualifies as an instructor will be determined by the institution’s accrediting agency.
- Substantive – A list of activities that qualify for substantive interaction includes direct instruction, assessment, feedback on student work or course content, and facilitating group discussions.
- Regular – In addition to the traditional notion of an instructor providing interactions on a set schedule, a second process was added. Instructors may also monitor student progress and provide feedback when needed or when requested by the student.

State Authorization

Eligibility to disburse federal financial aid is tied to the institution having approval of each state in which it serves students. This can be achieved by getting approval directly from the state or by participation in a reciprocity agreement.
The definition of reciprocity contains the same problematic language that was released in 2016, but we believe the Department will use the interpretation they gave to us in early 2017 to preserve reciprocity. There are critics who would love to kill reciprocity, and we will need to be vigilant this year. More to come on this topic.
Determining student location will require that the institutions have a process and act when a student indicates that he or she has relocated to another state.

Written Arrangements

In contracting or partnering with other entities to offer part of a program…

If you are partnering with another financial aid eligible institution, that institution can now offer more than half of a program.
Proposals to allow institutions to create written arrangements with non-accredited entities to provide more than 50% of a program were not adopted.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

It was widely reported in the media and Twitter that this negotiated rulemaking process was either a “false process” or that concerns of failure to meet consensus would cause more worries, if the Department wrote the rules. Ultimately, the negotiators at the table created a plan with which they believed we can all live.

Picture of negotiated rulemaking agreement. Members are sitting around tables and agreeing on the issues. — The negotiated rulemaking main committee shortly after agreeing to consensus on all issues.

It was enlightening to listen to the Department’s live stream of the subcommittee and the main committee and hear that most discussions were driven by sincere desire to understand and compromise, all with the goal to help students participate in 21^st Century higher education. Everyone gave on some issues and everyone won on some issues. That is how negotiations work. And, with the need to have complete agreement (consensus), a minority voice has a large impact on the outcome.

The road to effective final regulations is not complete. You can anticipate the following:

The Department’s release of Proposed Regulations in the next several months.
Public comment opportunity to provide feedback upon release of the Proposed Regulations.
Department review of the feedback on the regulations.
A release of Final Regulations by November 1, 2019 will cause a July 1, 2020 effective date for the Final Regulations.
The Department indicated that the earliest rules will go into effect July 2020, but the implementation process could go into 2021.

Meanwhile… we will also continue to watch Congress, as it is widely reported that there is bipartisan intention to complete the long-awaited reauthorization of The Higher Education Act (HEA). A newly reauthorized Federal law could have an impact on the implementation of regulations.

There are many steps along this road to implementation of regulations, so you can expect us to provide deeper analysis of some of the issues mentioned here, along with status updates on the progress of the regulations and any movement on HEA Reauthorization.

Cheryl Dowd
Director, State Authorization Network
WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
cdowd@wiche.edu

Russ Poulin
Senior Director – Policy, Analysis, and Strategic Alliances
WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu

Academic Integrity, Accreditation, Distance Education, Financial Aid, Innovation, Negotiated Rulemaking, Online Learning, Reciprocity, Regulation, SARA, State Authorization, Student Success, WCET

Practice

The Connected Student and the Internet of Things

By Erin Noelle Walton

April 9, 2019

Today we welcome Mickey Slimp, Executive Director of the Northeast Texas Consortium of Colleges & Universities (NETnet), located at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, where he also serves as an associate provost of academic affairs. In his blog, Mickey discusses the realities of thriving in an Internet dependent society. More importantly, he touches on the challenges and exciting opportunities that exist for all those involved in education. Thank you for your helpful insights Mickey!

–Erin Walton, contract editor for WCET

My breakfast meeting was nearly over when the texts from the technology team started coming in. Stepping outside, a robo-call followed by a real person notified me that regular power was completely out at the office. The entire building was in an alarm state.

PIcture of the book cober for "How the Internet of Things Is Changing Our Colleges, Our Classrooms, and Our Students," by Mickey Slimp and Roy Bartels. — Mickey Slimp and Roy Bartels are the authors of How the Internet of Things Is Changing Our Colleges, Our Classrooms, and Our Students, published by Rowman & Littlefield, 2019.

Before I go any further, first a little context. Our team coordinates an educational and research network for northeast Texas, covering an area about the size of South Carolina. We’re located within the facilities of a university health science center, replete with medical residencies, degree programs, research labs, a hospital, and multiple clinics. The network interconnects about twenty community college and regional university campuses, a similar number of rural medical clinics, and twenty-five or so school districts.

So, spring storms grab our attention and an alarm gets noticed.

The first step I took with my technical team was to confirm that the network was untouched. Back up batteries and a generator were working just as designed to keep the core functions unscathed. When I pulled onto the campus, I quickly saw that all non-emergency essential areas were dark: office lights were out, coffee makers were off, and the regular ambient noises were missing.

In addition to the office being dark, the desktop computers were dead. As a result, meetings were postponed, and projects were delayed throughout the morning.

Approaching Code Red

A February Inside Higher Ed piece detailed the recent plight of Amherst College following five days of Internet silence from an aging campus network. One of the descriptors used was “Catastrophic.” Beyond losing access to wi-fi and their online courses, centrally controlled doors defaulted to “unlocked,” laundry and other vending functions failed, and printing disappeared.

The Internet is now inextricably integrated into nearly every element of the educational process. From the classroom to research to validation, students and faculty depend on digitized connections using their devices. And when the Internet “is down,” progress comes to a virtual standstill.

From Tools to Dependency

How did we get to this point, and how does this dependence upon our technologies impact our students and our colleges?

Where microcomputing components are embedded into our devices, cars, tools, and even our clothing to provide analysis, make decisions, and take actions, there exists what is called the “Internet of Things.” Using “IoT,” our handheld devices connect to and through the Internet. Our buildings, highways, and community infrastructure likewise connect in much the same way.

For today’s student, an IoT driven world is quickly becoming the norm. Born in the 21st century, college freshmen have had cell phones around them since birth. Many of these students are ignorant of a world where the World Wide Web did not exist, and their expectations are set to have instant information, instant communication, and instant entertainment.

Changes in the online environment have impacted everything. Most industries have reworked their business plans to collect and push out information, capital, and services through web-based interactions and devices. In the field of higher education, the impact has just begun.

The Contemporary Student

Millennials, the younger Gen Z students, and even Gen Xers have become attuned to a 60-second or faster response time. Students expect to grab a phone, pull up a website, and find whatever is needed in less than a minute, and their Internet embedded devices have altered their expectations and even our power structures. Less than a decade ago, everyone had to go somewhere to gain information. Using analytics generated by social media and Internet infused devices, relevant (although not always accurate) information is pushed to the users, changing an entire social dynamic.

Picture of four innovative watches that serve as the latest wearable technology. — Wearable technology has altered the old-fashioned watch into a new world of possibilities. Medical monitoring, emails and messaging, video playback, and even finances can be managed from your wrist. Bluetooth enabled, the devices can collect analytics and share, via your phone, with other devices.

Student options for engagement are growing. The traditional classroom is an idea of the 19th century, and this vision placed students around their teacher with everyone in a dedicated structure for learning. The traditional model happens today for only about 60% of community college students. Over the next decade, those numbers should decline to something like 40%. Should funding and structures change to place more students in college, non-classroom options will likely play an even greater role.

IoT-generated analytics are altering the process of teaching, from planning to the scheduling and delivery of personalized instruction. The analytics provided by the various data-centric predictive foot-traffic monitoring tools such as ID chips and facial recognition can be integrated directly into student information systems. Knowing how many students are going to attend which classes at what time can offer schedule variations to turn logjams into a smoother flow of pedestrians, easing congestion, frustrations, and flare-ups.

The Instructional Changes

Simultaneously integrated through distance learning, the Internet of Things movement is diffusing even more instructional changes throughout the college. The growth of instructional analytics, documenting student participation in a course, visits to a website, uses of library and external web materials, and the focus of an eye on a page, have emerged from the learning management system structure.

An addition of smartphones engrained within the daily routine of the student is a key component of the Internet of Things (IoT). Personal devices are already mainstays of distance and classroom-based instruction and will become essential as students lead the way into a student empowered learning environment.

Today’s student does not believe that he or she should have to ask for enough Wi-Fi to do whatever he or she wants. Students simply expect it to be there. With the emerging Internet of Things and personal demands for Internet-based entertainment, the need for faster connection speeds has exploded. Consider a small college campus with maybe 2,000 students attending at any one time. If we assume that each student carries a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, and perhaps a smartwatch, it is possible to have 6,000 or more devices vying for the college network download speed and capacity.

Map of the Internet of Things on the College Campus. The maps includes parking spaces, libraries, digital capacitors, student services, campus security, food services, and locations for campus wide wifi and cell boosters. — IoT is already changing the way campuses are planned, from an emphasis on online services to new rules for pedestrian areas and parking. More changes are coming.

Changes on the Horizon

The reality is that campuses are becoming as dependent upon Internet access as they are with basic utilities such as climate controls and even electricity. Rural campuses in particular continue to struggle to keep up with the demands, from classroom and dorm support to the campus wireless network. One common question is how large a connection is enough? Recommendations are for one gigabyte per 1,000 students, but reality paints a different picture. In an ongoing battle, the end point and the demands from our students will keep moving us ahead.

Our leadership will need to stay abreast of these realities and student needs and move forward.

For further information, you can purchase How the Internet of Things Is Changing Our Colleges, Our Classrooms, and Our Students. Use the code RLEGEN19 to gain a 20% discount. You can also order it from most bookstores.

Mickey Slimp
Executive Director of the Northeast Texas Consortium of Colleges & Universities (NETnet)
Associate Provost of Academic Affairs, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler

References

[i] McKenzie, Lindsey. 2019. “No Email, No Wi-Fi, No LMS,” Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 21, 2019, 1150 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036. Accessed from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/02/21/almost-week-no-internet-amherst-college.

Distance Education, Technology

Practice

Announcing 10 Tips for Report Writers

By Erin Noelle Walton

April 3, 2019

In this blog, we welcome Mary Ellen Dello Stritto and Kathryn Linder from the Oregon State University Ecampus Research Unit as they introduce a companion resource: 10 Tips for Report Writers. This new resource was thoughtfully developed to assist practitioners and researchers in the field. Like the Report Reader Checklist, this resource serves as a valuable tool. Thank you Mary Ellen and Kathryn!

Enjoy!

Erin Walton – contract editor for WCET

In January, the Oregon State University Ecampus Research Unit announced our Report Reader Checklist in WCET Frontiers. This resource includes a comprehensive set of criteria that offers a guide for those reading reports to evaluate the quality and rigor of online education study reports they may encounter in their work.

So far, we have received positive feedback on this resource. We have also heard that the checklist items are helpful not just for reading reports, but also for writing research reports. In response to this feedback, we have created a companion resource, 10 Tips for Report Writers. We developed this new resource for practitioners and researchers in the field who are writing research reports.

How it All Began

The feedback we received relates to how the Ecampus Research Unit staff came up with the idea for this particular project. In the past few years, we have met in a small reading group with colleagues from another institution. In our meetings, we read and digested industry reports. During these sessions, we would see elements missing from some reports that we thought would be helpful in understanding a particular study. As you may know, the field of distance education relies heavily on reports for data to make decisions and better understand the status of online teaching, learning, and administration. Given the lengthy timeline of peer review, self-published reports can be timely; however, these reports are often not peer-reviewed.

These experiences and our mission of increasing research literacy in the field have planted the seed for our report literacy project. Based on our collective observations as report writers, we also saw a need to articulate standards of quality that authors in the field can refer to when developing study reports. As we developed 10 Tips for Report Writers, we solicited feedback from prominent report writers in the field and incorporated their suggestions into the final product.

The 10 Tips

In brief, here are the 10 tips:

Know your audience
Describe the larger purpose
Be transparent about intentions, purpose and findings
Include a methodology section
Report the “N”
Describe and contextualize data
Visualize the data
Consider length
Carefully consider language
Make reports readable and accessible

We explain each of these tips in detail in the 10 Tips for Report Writers PDF. As researchers who juggle multiple projects ourselves, we know that report writers often deal with many competing demands in the midst of working on reports. We hope this tips guide will be useful as a final check before distributing study results, and we look forward to feedback on this companion resource.

About the Oregon State University Ecampus Research Unit: The OSU Ecampus Research Unit makes research actionable through the creation of evidence-based resources related to effective online teaching, learning and program administration. The OSU Ecampus Research Unit is part of Oregon State Ecampus, the university’s top-ranked online education provider.

Mary Ellen Dello Stritto
Assistant director
Ecampus Research Unit, Oregon State University
maryellen.dellostritto@oregonstate.edu

Kathryn Linder
Director
Ecampus Research Unit, Oregon State University
kathryn.linder@oregonstate.edu

Distance Education, Online Learning, Research, Survey, WCET

Practice

Ivy Tech’s ‘Innovation Day’ Supports Promising Faculty Ideas

By Erin Noelle Walton

March 29, 2019

Thank you to Kara Monroe for today’s WCET Frontiers guest blog post. Kara is the Provost and Senior Vice President at Ivy Tech Community College and also serves on the WCET Steering Committee. During Ivy Tech’s Innovation Day, faculty have three minutes to pitch a new idea. A few are selected to be supported with funding to develop the idea. Thank you Kara for sharing.

Russ Poulin, WCET

Three years ago, Barb stood in front of a panel of seven judges. She had three minutes to tell her story about a great idea for modifying the course schedule for Anatomy and Physiology to offer tutoring sessions before or after each class session. At the three-minute mark, the time keeper called time and Barb had three key points left to go.

Fast forward to February 25, 2019 when Ivy Tech Community College hosted its third annual Innovation Day competition. Barb was back – this time with a new idea. She wanted to build a set of dynamic game-based lessons for students to complete before class starts to help them prepare for anatomy and physiology by learning the foundational building blocks of anatomical system terms. Barb deftly navigated her three minutes with the judges – both telling the story of the initiative she proposed three years ago but for which she had received no funding at the time. As she told her story, Barb engaged the judges in learning to use word parts like endo-, -blast, and –sis to arrive at a general understanding of meanings of words like endocytosis.

Three years had passed since her initial presentation, and Barb walked away one of five winners with $5,000 to fund her project.

What is Innovation Day?

Innovation Day is an internal idea generation competition that is designed to provide faculty and staff across the Ivy Tech system the opportunity to bring big ideas to life to advance student success. Ivy Tech is the nation’s largest, singly accredited statewide community college. We serve more than 100,000 students across the state of Indiana on an annual basis. In a system as large as ours – with a few thousand faculty and staff at nineteen campuses – it can be hard to make an excellent idea visible. One of the purposes of Innovation Day is to give every faculty and staff member equal opportunity to get ideas in the hands of decision makers at the institution as well as to get those ideas in front of a panel of judges who can help bring big ideas to life.

The Importance of a Meaningful Connection

Carmin experienced one of those connections with a judge. Carmin’s idea is to purchase a Weather Balloon for STEM Engagement. The balloon can carry a number of designed experiments and offers multiple opportunities for scientific exploration and collaboration. While Carmin requested $15,000, she received $10,000 through innovation day and left with a connection to one of the judges – a person heavily involved in the local community and with a program that would be a natural partnership for the Weather Balloon initiative.

Picture of Innovation Day official winners. — Winners at the most recent Innovation Day.

You might be wondering: how do you get the opportunity to pitch to a set of judges in this process. Innovation Day is actually a three-phase process. Phase One is a “pitch letter.” This is a letter of no more than two pages that essentially pitches the idea. Phase Two is a brief “application” that is designed to help those who advance to Phase Three to shape their idea into a presentation that can clearly explain their idea in three minutes or less. To advance in Phases one and two, a team of college staff read and score ideas with a simple question – is this an innovative idea that would help the College advance its strategy? Those who advance to Phase Three are assigned a coach and must present their idea to a team of judges made up of external funders, college partners, and college leadership; presentations must be no more than three minutes in length. These judges rate each presentation on three criteria: the need, the clarity of the idea, and its potential impact.

The Funding

Each year, Ivy Tech awards between $25,000 and $40,000 to fund projects. Project funding varies. This year, five projects were funded with amounts ranging from $5,000 – $15,000. Winners receive support from a project manager who helps them turn their ideas into a reality. You can see a summary of all five of this year’s winning ideas and watch their three-minute pitch presentations at http://www.ivytech.edu/innovationday.

Lessons We Have Learned

As we have worked through this process over the last three years, we have learned many lessons. The first is evidenced in Barb’s story and that is the importance of helping our faculty and staff truly prepare for these three-minute pitches. In year one, we provided optional coaching from senior executives who regularly speak in front of decision makers like Board members and funders. Barb was not alone in year one in not getting through her presentation. Many folks were in the same boat. So, in years two and three we’ve added coaching as a designed element of the process. While still optional, participants have learned the value of coaching in helping them refine their ideas.

Second, we’ve seen that many ideas that come through this process fall into categories either of not needing funding or perhaps of needing very little funding – but instead just need approval to move ahead. Several of the nineteen campuses have now set aside funds to develop similar programs at the campus level – to help their faculty and staff surface initiatives and move them ahead either with a simple “Go for it” or with a small amount of money. At the other end of the spectrum are those ideas that fall well outside of the approximately $40,000 available each year. Innovation Day provides a platform to get a great idea in front of multiple influencers both inside and outside of the College and has successfully been used as a launching point for larger funding initiatives.

Picture of about 30 faculty who pitched their ideas at Innovation Day. — Faculty who pitched their ideas at Innovation Day 2019.

Finally, we’ve seen faculty like Renee who have leveraged funding through Innovation Day, Ivy Tech’s Women’s Giving Circle – Circle of Ivy, and crowdsourced funding on her own to fund a major learning initiative. The Teach2Grow immersive English Composition course, which takes place in both garden and classroom, helps students learn practical skills in raising their own food while also learning writing skills through writing on topics like food insecurity. You can see Renee’s funded pitch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSri9KOCEvg. Because of participation in these various platforms and connections made through them, there are now additional sections of Teach2Grow Composition running across the state and new collaborative partnerships between faculty and staff.

At Ivy Tech, we know the best ideas are in the hands of each of our individual students, faculty, and staff, and Innovation Day is just one program that helps us bring those ideas to the forefront and take them from idea to action.

Kara Monroe
Provost and Senior Vice President
Ivy Tech Community College

Collaboration/Community, Cost of Instruction, Innovation, Professional Development

Practice

Tracking enrollments in online and distance education in Canada: 2018

By Erin Noelle Walton

March 26, 2019

1 Comment

WCET plays an integral role in advising the Canadian National Survey of Online and Distance Education. This is the second year of the survey and the following blog contains the most recent results. Thanks Tricia Donovan!

–Erin Walton, contract editor for WCET

In Canada, about one in twelve (8%) of all courses are taught online. This is just one of the results of the 2018 Canadian National Survey of Online and Distance Education. This is the second year for the survey and the only effort to capture national data regarding what is happening in online, distance, and blended/hybrid courses at Canada’s publicly funded post-secondary institutions.

Canada graph — 1.36 million online course registrations in Canada in 2016-17.

We are glad to reach the second year mark after a few false starts and with the on-going support from WCET’s very own Russ Poulin. The Canadian National Survey is a team of individual researchers led by myself, Dr. Tony Bates, and Dr. Jeff Seaman from the Babson Survey Research Group.

In 2018, we established the Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA) to support the work of the bilingual survey. We are committed to sharing the data and receive support from OCAS, the application system for Ontario colleges, Ontario to house the open data for academics to conduct further research on the results.

Canada’s post-secondary system

Responsibility for post-secondary education in Canada falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction – there is no national oversight or coordinating body that would collect data on what is happening in online and digital education (or other areas in post-secondary for that matter).

As such, it is truly a remarkable feat to have had the opportunity to survey and to garner the results we have in just our second year of surveying. This could not have been possible without the support of our partners (WCET and Babson), our sponsors (provincial eCampuses, Contact North, Pearson Canada, OCAS, and D2L), and the willingness of post-secondary institutions to discover, share, and find value in the data. We are a thankful research team.

A snapshot of key results:

2018: 80% response rate, 187/234 institutions (university, college, CEGEP).
1.36 million online course registrations.
83% of Canada’s public post-secondary institutions offer online courses for credit.
8% of all for credit courses in Canada are online.
At least 17% of students in Canada take at least one course online.
Future forecast: anticipating increases in online enrollments.

Some interesting observations

Online learning in Canada is very well established, with many institutions offering online education for 15 years or longer. In Canada, there are a handful of institutions that are 100% dedicated completely to online:

Athabasca University, Alberta.
Téluq, Quebec.
Cégep a Distance, Quebec.
College Educacentre, British Columbia.

There are also a number of institutions with a high percentage of online activity:

Northern Lakes College, Alberta (58%).
BCIT, British Columbia (42%).
College Sainté-Anne, Nova Scotia (41%).
Yukon College, Yukon (37%).
Royal Roads, British Columbia (35 %).

And, we learned that there exist a number of post-secondary institutions in Canada with a very high number of online course enrollments as can be seen in the following list:

Universitié Laval, Quebec (74,229).
University of Waterloo, Ontario (43,572).
Concordia University, (32,401).
Algonquin College (29,600).
Fanshawe College (28.612).
Centennial College (22,528).
British Columbia Institute of Technology, (20,492).

The role of the eCampuses

Across Canada today, there are four provincial eCampus organizations (BCcampus, Campus Manitoba, Contact North, and eCampusOntario). The eCampus organizations serve as catalysts for maximizing collaboration and sharing of best practices, lessons and strategies learned, quality assurance, professional development for teaching and learning, open educational resources, and more. Alberta supported an eCampus organization from 2002-2017 and both Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have been or are exploring the opportunity to establish one.

Full disclosure: I am a strong believer and biased advocate for inter-institutional collaboration and initiatives that support excellence in online teaching and learning and student success. I served as the Executive Director of eCampusAlberta for 14.5 years; co-led a WCET-led group focused on consortia issues with Russ Poulin, David Porter (BCcampus and eCampusOntario), and Kevin Corcoran (Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium) for a few years.

Why do we Survey?

We are committed to ensuring that the survey results add value to those working in online and digital education. In the open-ended comments, some institutions thanked us for asking the questions and others asked us to share how institutions are tracking this data. In the absence of provincial reporting requirements, this data has not been consistently tracked nor measured at many institutions.

Some senior executives have shared that the survey has served as a ‘wake-up’ call for them to develop the processes required to track this data, which we think is a good thing.

Online learning is growing in post-secondary education in Canada and we think it is important to surface what is happening, what is working well, and help support a network of advocates who are focused on increasing access and flexibility for students and faculty. By developing an understanding of the strategic importance of online learning and the identification of barriers in expanding it, we hope to collectively influence decisions that will further inform and support success.

Moving toward shared definitions

One area of the survey on which Russ Poulin and I focused was on the issue of definitions in online learning. Both of us have been active in online learning for twenty years or more – and we were well aware of the lack of agreement on definitions. In fact, Russ is now on a U.S. Department of Education subcommittee that is once again tackling the distance education definition.

Perhaps that is why we were pleasantly surprised to discover that, when we asked institutions if they have a definition for each of the delivery modalities, we also asked them if their definition matched one presented by the survey. When we look at the National figures, we found:

54% agreement or match with the distance education definition;
65% agreement with the online definition; and
59% for blended/hybrid definition.

The results are even stronger in some provinces such as in Ontario, where responding institutions shared 83% agreement with the definition provided for an online course.

Online Course Definition: A form of distance education where the primary delivery mechanism is via the Internet. These could be delivered synchronously or asynchronously. All instruction is conducted at a distance.

This is a small but mighty finding! If we can agree on what it is we are talking about, comparison of data becomes more meaningful. However, with less than two-thirds agreement on of these definitions there is much work left to be done. For those institutions that do not yet have a definition, we would encourage them to start with the definitions provided by the survey – simply for the sake of efficacy.

Canada/US Comparison

We have the unique privilege of being able to administer the policy and practice portions of the 2019 Canadian survey to a representative sample of chief academic officers (the highest-ranking individual responsible for the academic programs, typical titles are provost, academic vice president, etc.) in the United States in 2018. The objective was to compare the experiences and opinions of those at institutions with for-credit distance course offering, so the responses from the 172 Canadian institutions that have for-credit online offerings were compared to a representative random sample of US academic leaders from 112 institutions with for-credit online offerings.

In general, the pattern of responses between the two countries is quite similar, and where there are differences, it is the Canadian respondents who are the more positive toward online education.

Results being well received

The results are being very well received by the provincial eCampuses, provincial ministries, and post-secondary institutions. We are committed to adding value to the institutions through our collection of data and sharing the results that will help to shape practice, inform policy, and support success.

Next steps

And to all who might be interested – we are preparing the 2019 Canadian Survey to be released in April and data collection will close at the end of May, 2019.

For more on the results, please visit: https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/publications. We have posted our Public Report, Technical Report, and a couple of our Regional Sub-Reports (Ontario and Western Canada are complete, Quebec and Atlantic Canada are in the works). The key results are also available in our first Infographic, which was designed by eCampusOntario. The digital assets of the Infographic are available online, and we encourage you to download and use them in your presentations to help create awareness of the survey results.

Please direct any questions you may have about the survey to: Tricia Donovan.

Tricia Donovan
Executive Director
Canadian Digital Learning Research Association
tdonovan@onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca

Collaboration/Community, Data and Analytics, Digital Learning, Distance Education, Online Learning, Research, Survey

Practice

Let the DATA drive: Washington community & technical college’s journey to establish OER and Low-Cost codes

By Erin Noelle Walton

March 21, 2019

In this blog, Mark Jenkins and Boyoung Chae detail the vital benefits of using a data-driven approach in OER initiatives to promote affordability and student success for Washington’s Community and Technical Colleges. Their approach helped to meet two important goals:

Meet students’ needs for learning which courses use free or “low-cost” resources, which aids them in making selections that save them money.
Meet administrative needs for the tracking of usage, assessing success, and developing policies for OER implementation.

They remind us that data and assessment are powerful components in identifying and initiating positive change at the community and technical college level. Enjoy their insights!

-Erin Walton, contract editor for WCET

In Washington State, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) is the coordination agency for system policy, shared resources, and collaborative initiatives. SBCTC’s OER initiative, which has been underway for nearly a decade, is a key component of our system’s ethos of resource sharing as way to support colleges’ efforts to make high quality, affordable curriculum available to all students. In SBCTC’s Education
Division, the office of Educational Technology and Open Education is charged with developing the infrastructure of research, policy, and process to support these efforts.

The rich collaboration between the agency and the colleges has resulted in a highly motivated community of practice made up of thousands of faculty, staff and student advocates for OER, and textbook affordability across the state.

Study 1. Assessing the needs

At SBCTC, efforts have focused on a multi-layered research program designed to ensure that our system-wide initiatives are deeply rooted in data-driven insights about what students and colleges need to promote success in open education. A comprehensive study of perceptions of OER in our system in 2015 revealed remarkable findings that continue to drive SBCTC OER initiatives.

Screenshot of Class search page from Tacoma Community College in Washington. — Class search page from Tacoma Community College in Washington.

One of the most important findings to emerge from this research indicated that students were finding it difficult to consistently locate courses using OER or other affordable materials. The means to identify and mark those classes at or before the point of registration have been beyond the capacity of many colleges. Because of this, OER based and affordable classes were not consistently supporting students’ ability to manage cost by making informed choices. Moreover, definitions and standards for OER and affordability varied across the system.

Study 2. Establishing a policy for OER labeling

In 2016, this insight led to a second study. SBCTC, with the help of system governance and student groups throughout the state, sought to identify consensus definitions and criteria for labelling OER-based courses in a consistent manner across all 34 colleges. The research led to a statewide policy for coding such courses. Soon after these codes were created, legislation passed in Washington state requiring OER information to be available at the time of registration. With the OER Code already established as policy by SBCTC, colleges were well-prepared to implement the requirement set forth in the statutes (E2SHB 1375 & RCW 28B.50.789).

Study 3. Establishing the threshold for Low-Cost labeling

During the implementation of the OER code, it became evident that the goal of informing student choice could best be fulfilled by enabling them to also identify courses that used affordable course materials, such as library materials, inexpensive textbooks, regardless of whether or not those materials included OER. Consequently, a new code was proposed to tag courses using low-cost materials. The first step in the developing a low-cost code and policy required SBCTC to understand how students would define low-cost and to propose a threshold value for affordability.

In partnership with the Washington Community & Technical Colleges Student Association (WACTCSA), SBCTC created a survey to define the threshold. Based on responses from over 10,000 students statewide, the plurality choice for the low-cost threshold is $50 or less.

These findings were discussed by college executive staff in system governance commissions and the $50.00 threshold was approved and added to the state coding manual.

Study 4. Establishing a policy for Low-Cost labeling

With the Low-Cost threshold identified, SBCTC surveyed faculty and staff in April 2018 to gather feedback on the implementation guidelines for the Low-Cost code. A total of 630 faculty members and college administrators responded. The report released the results of the survey and shares the revised name and criteria based on the feedback received.

coding-progress2 — Washington community and technical colleges’ journey in establishing OER and Low Cost code.

Benefits of the data-driven approach

The top three benefits of using a data-driven approach are as follows:

Helps to build more relevant and usable policy: The data-driven process described above helps meet key stakeholders –faculty, administrators, and students — where they are, in real time. Policy guideline should be evaluated by its relevance and usability in actual teaching practice. This can only be achieved with careful observation of these practices that is informed by robust data collection.

Helps to involve stakeholders: A brand-new course labeling system could be perceived as an onerous imposition on faculty members and college administrators. Providing opportunities for the faculty, administrators, and students to participate in the research from the beginning gives them a sense of ownership and collective responsibility.

Helps to promote the policy: When each process is documented in the form of a research finding, it enables better communication about progress to stakeholders. It is easy to show the logical relations between the steps and how each step informs the next.

In the end

Establishing a brand-new coding system for a non-traditional and evolving domain such as OER could be a daunting task for any system. However, when data guides the process, it can help maintain focus on the goal and form productive relationships with stakeholders. Data can also provide the strongest possible platform for informed decision making.

Mark Jenkins, Ph.D.
Director, Educational Technology & Open Education
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges

Boyoung Chae, Ph.D.
Policy Associate, Educational Technology & Open Education
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges

Collaboration/Community, Cost of Instruction, NCOER, Open Educational Resources, Research, Student Success, Technology, Tuition and Fees

Practice

ED Negotiated Rulemaking: Innovation Subcommittee Completes Its Work and Makes Several Recommendations

By Erin Noelle Walton

March 19, 2019

3 Comments

The “Distance Learning and Education Innovation” Subcommittee of the current U.S. Department of Education negotiated rulemaking process completed its work last week. While several reports highlighted that there was disagreement on issues, there has been less attention paid to the general agreement the negotiators were reaching on a long list of regulations under consideration.

There certainly was stark disagreement on some of the issues. For the most part, we were pleased with the respectful discussions (imagine that in DC!) and the progress that we made. The Department staff were extraordinarily attentive to the concerns raised by the negotiators and responsive in trying to find solutions.

This blog post continues our series of updates on the negotiations (see January and February posts). I highlight a few of the key recommendations that will be made to the main committee, which begins its final rounds of deliberations today.

Picture of people discussing negotiated rulemaking. People are sitting at tables that are organized in a rectangle. That's Russ Poulin on the left. — Carolyn Fast makes a point during discussions of the “Distance Learning and Educational Innovations” negotiated rulemaking subcommittee.

“Distance Education” and “Regular and Substantive Interaction” Definitions

As you may recall, the definitions of “distance education” and “correspondence education” were originally written in opposition to each other for financial aid purposes. Distance education courses are always eligible for aid, while an institution teaching too many correspondence courses becomes ineligible for aid. The concept of “regular and substantive interaction” was introduced in the 1990’s, but was never fully defined.

This issue generated the widest variety of approaches and opinions. Some proposed not changing the definitions at all because they are in statute and protect against fraud. Others said that the definitions needed to be updated to address innovations unanticipated in the original definition, while still protecting against fraud.

After reviewing several proposals, we were mired in a rather lengthy set of wording. An outcomes-based approach would be the best path, but that would need to be created by Congress. Based upon subcommittee feedback, the Department responded with a much more elegant (if incomplete) set of wording that represented a reasonable compromise, including:

Clarified that “regular and substantive interaction” may be achieved either synchronously or asynchronously.
Removes antiquated technologies (e.g., CD-Roms) and allows “other media” to be used in distance education.
To allow for “unbundled” faculty models (as used by Western Governors University and others), the notion of interaction with “content experts” was included. Accrediting agencies will more fully define this term. This expands interactivity beyond a lone instructor.
The types of instructional activities counted as “substantive” are listed.
In addressing the notion of “regular”…“interaction” could still be on a schedule that is initiated by the instructor on a “predictable and regular” basis. This reflects the “instructor initiated” view of “interaction” that had been used in audits. But what counts as interaction was greatly expanded by including the following option: “Monitoring the student’s academic engagement and success and ensuring that an instructor is responsible for promptly and proactively engaging in substantive interaction with the student when needed, on the basis of such monitoring, or upon request by the student.”

Finally, the Department removed a section that allowed accrediting agencies to provide a “waiver” in certain cases. I thought this was important to allow for competency-based education and other new innovations that actually provide MORE interaction than was previously counted but did not meet the interpretations of the auditors. I supported taking it out because the main committee is considering a “waiver” process for accrediting agencies that could be used in more cases that just the distance education definition. The broader view provides more promise.

I could write much more on this issue, but let’s wait to see what comes of the final sessions of the main committee.

“Credit Hour” Definition

A change to the definition of “credit hour” was proposed by the Department “to eliminate time-based requirements and allow institutions to develop their own definitions as long as they met accrediting agency requirements.” The new proposal asked institutions to take into account “alternative delivery methods, measurements of student work, academic calendars, disciplines, and degree levels.”

While there was some interest in divorcing the credit hour from strict time limitations, the subcommittee was uncomfortable at how loose the proposed language appeared to be. There also seemed to be a realization that most institution and accrediting personnel are now comfortable with the once-vilified definitions developed by the last administration.

The Department will forward a version of their definition to the main committee, while noting the reservations of the subcommittee.

State Authorization of Distance Education

This issue also generated much discussion. The following are highlights of what will be forwarded to the main committee along with dissenting opinions:

The ability to disburse aid should be tied to the institution having approvals in the state either directly by the state or through a reciprocity agreement.
A “reciprocity agreement for State authorization” does not include additional restrictions sought by some. It does say that there cannot be a “conflict between a State’s statutes and regulations and the requirements of the agreement.” Minority views for adding those restrictions will be forwarded to the main committee.
The institution will be expected to determine student location at the time of enrollment…there may be some clarifying language to be added to what goes to the main committee.

Notifications for ALL Students in Professional Licensure Programs

While this notification was discussed with the state authorization topic, the requirement was expanded, and I decided to address it separately in this post. It is proposed that all students entering programs that lead to “employment in a specific occupation” notify students whether completion of that programs would be sufficient to meet the educational licensure requirements in a State for that occupation.

This would be a requirement both for students in distance education and face-to-face, on-campus professional programs.

Institutions could report on their websites that they have made the determination that their program would: a) meet requirements, b) would not meet requirements, or c) that program personnel have not made a determination. In the latter two categories, program personnel would also have to provide a direct notification to the student.

“Written Arrangements” with Non-Accredited Entities

The Department had originally proposed that an institution be able to create a “written arrangement” with an institution or organization that is not accredited to provide up to 100% of an academic program. This would double the current 50% limitation. The goal was to increase innovation. That proposal was not well received in prior sessions.

Three women and two men are sitting at a table with microphones in front of them. Three of them have the name cards in front of them on end. — Leah Matthews, DEAC, signifies her interest in speaking on a topic being considered during negotiations by placing her name tag on end.

As a result, the Department staff sought to allow institutions to enter into agreements for up to 50% of a program without accreditor approval. They also proposed that an institution could enter into agreement for greater than 50% with accreditor approval. They asked whether 75% might be an acceptable cap.

There were concerns about the ability of accreditors to oversee the third-party provider and what the impact might be on low-income students. Additional methods to safeguard students and financial aid investments were discussed. In the end, the majority of the subcommittee was not supportive of the expansion of contracted programs. The Department plans to present a form of the proposal to the main committee while noting the objections.

Direct Assessment

Direct Assessment is an alternative way for institutions to qualify for aid, especially for those using competency-based education or, possibly, others that don’t focus on measures of time — such as the credit hour. After several years, there are fewer than ten institutions using this option, while several others have attempted it and given up. The Department proposed to revise the regulations related to direct assessment programs to simplify and clarify those requirements and streamline the application process for such programs.

One of the simplifications proposed was to change the requirement that every direct assessment program would need to be approved separately. Once one direct assessment program is approved for an institution, it would be able to offer additional direct assessment programs. That is, as long as those programs meet state and accreditation requirements. Additionally, several requirements for how a direct assessment program must operate were deleted or moved to other sections.

If this proposal goes forward, it will be interesting to see if more institutions decide to follow this path.

Subscription Period

A subset of direct assessment programs use a “subscription period” in which a student can take as many courses as he or she can. The biggest issue is with students who do not complete a minimum level of coursework by the time the current subscription period ends. Right now, students cannot obtain the next federal financial aid eligibility and funding until they complete that minimum. This can place a burden on the student and the institution that is so great that the student does not persist.

Two options were given on page 61. For those in direct assessment programs, in subscription programs, or in competency-based education programs, please look at these models and provide feedback. The subcommittee seemed to like the 67% level of option 1 being brought into option 2. Let me know if you have reactions or suggestions.

Other Issues

Additional issues considered by the subcommittee were:

Definitions of:
- Academic engagement.
- Additional location and branch campus.
- Eligible institution.
- Institution of higher education.
- Several accreditation definitions.
Requirements for prompt action by the Secretary on approval actions.
Types of entities that are subject to change in ownership and past performance provisions.
Acquisitions of locations of closing institutions.
Termination and emergency action proceedings.
Foreign schools and classes in the United States.
Teach-outs.
Definition of a week of instructional time for asynchronous distance education or correspondence courses.
Limitations on the length of gainful employment programs based on State licensure requirements.
Clock-to-credit conversion.
Certification procedures.
Return of Title IV funds.
Satisfactory academic progress.
Disclosures for prior learning assessment and transfer of credit.
Use of accrediting agency definitions for audit or program review appeals.
Financial responsibility.

Whew! That was much lot to cover in six days. Several of the items were technical fixes. Some have much bigger impact, but I decided not to cover them in this post.

What’s Next?

Remember that these are all proposals from the subcommittee to the main committee. They will meet March 25-28 and April 1-3. Our subcommittee work is currently scheduled for March 25. For more background documents and information on watching a live stream of the event, see the Department’s negotiated rulemaking website.

The issues will be placed into consensus groupings. The main committee must come to full agreement (“consensus”) on all issues within one of the groupings for those proposals to go forward. Failing consensus, the Department is able to write its own regulations. Even if they do not reach consensus, I would be surprised if they ventured far afield of some of these issues that were discussed in-depth during this process.

Whether consensus is reached or not, proposed regulations would be released this summer for comment if they wish to have them take effect on July 1 of 2020. Meanwhile, President Trump released his hopes for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act yesterday.

We will provide you with another update after the main committee completes its negotiations, continue to watch what happens with reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and keep you informed all along the way.

Thank You!

I interacted with many people while serving as a negotiator. Thank you for your input whether in person, by phone, or e-mail. There were several times where I used scenarios that you provided to illustrate a point.

I appreciate the helpfulness of our community.

Thank you.

Russell Poulin
Senior Director – Policy, Analysis, and Strategic Alliances
WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu @russpoulin

Accreditation, Credits, Distance Education, Financial Aid, Higher Education Act, Outcomes, Quality, Reauthorization, Reciprocity, Regulation, SARA, State Authorization, Technology, Title IV, U.S. Department of Education

Practice

Developing a State Authorization Policy: It’s About the Journey

By Erin Noelle Walton

March 13, 2019

Today we welcome Lisa Siefker and Robert Griffiths from The Ohio State University to share their journey to educate their institution, assess practices, create and implement processes that connect the core mission of the university to institutional compliance for out-of-state activities for the entire university.

The WCET/State Authorization Network (SAN) presents SANsational awards annually to recognize outstanding efforts by SAN member institutions and organizations in developing a high-quality, comprehensive solution to a challenging state authorization issue. Awards are currently presented in three categories: Location, Professional Licensure, and Compliance Innovations. SAN was proud to award The Ohio State University with two 2017 SANsational Awards for:

Location (Identification of where students are located).
Licensure Programs (Notifications and disclosures for professional licensure program status in each state).

Thank you Lisa and Rob for sharing your story of institutional collaboration at a large public university to implement a comprehensive strategy that includes the Out-of-State Educational Activity Policy. Great work!

–Cheryl Dowd, WCET/SAN

The Challenge

During the past six years, The Ohio State University has increased its online program offerings from one program to 30. As the number and scope of Ohio State Online programs grew, the university’s Office of Distance Education and eLearning (ODEE) needed a strategy to manage related compliance issues.

In 2013, only three states authorized Ohio State to offer online programs, and the university had no approvals to offer licensure programs — such as nursing — outside Ohio. As the school’s portfolio expanded, most university stakeholders were unaware of state authorization regulations or the regulatory impacts on Ohio State activities. Today, the institution has enacted a university-wide compliance policy, is approved to offer many online programs nationwide, and has established processes to seek and maintain compliance for licensure programs.

Ohio State’s state authorization team faced challenges that are common at many institutions:

Working with independent academic units.
Influencing university-wide change without the authority to do so.
Communicating complex – and continually changing – requirements.

So, how did Ohio State make progress toward compliance? And what key lessons did we learn in the process?

Connecting to the Mission

As ODEE began to develop the university’s compliance strategy, the state authorization team decided not to lead its messaging with the adverse actions and lawsuits that could result from noncompliance. Instead, the team concentrated on the link between compliance and Ohio State’s core mission and values — namely to expand access and affordability and increase student success. Compliance with state authorization regulations ensures that an Ohio State degree will be recognized and that Ohio State students will be eligible to sit for licensure outside Ohio. Therefore, compliance furthers the Ohio State mission.

It’s difficult not to support an initiative that advances the university’s mission and is acutely student focused.

With a communication strategy in place, ODEE began to meet with stakeholders regarding state authorization. The next step was to convert these conversations into action.

Taking Action

After introducing state authorization considerations to the Office of Academic Affairs, curricular deans, Legal Affairs, the University Registrar, and other university leaders, ODEE invited Russ Poulin, WCET Senior Director, and Cheryl Dowd, WCET State Authorization Network (SAN) Director, to the Ohio State campus to meet with stakeholders. As a state authorization expert who participated in the U.S. Department of Education’s 2014 Negotiated Rulemaking process, Russ was able to share an outside perspective on the national state authorization landscape. His visit gave credibility to the state authorization team’s message.

Although Russ’ visit generated more discussion, stakeholders continued to have questions about state authorization roles, responsibilities, and processes at Ohio State. It was around this time that the idea of developing a university-wide policy began to take shape. Having a policy in place to formalize roles and processes would be nice, but the real value would be in navigating the university policy approval process. The approval process provided a map to reach all university stakeholders and to include them in compliance discussions.

University policies are frequently viewed as enforcement tools. In this case, the state authorization team saw the policy as an opportunity to ensure inclusivity for collectively defining and continually updating the university’s state authorization process to promote compliance, access, and student success. The process also provided an opportunity to lean in to difficult conversations and translate those conversations into the necessary rapport and trust to build meaningful partnerships — the critical element of university-wide state authorization processes.

What’s Next?

The policy approval process took about a year to complete, and the Out-of-State Educational Activities Policy took effect in December 2016. However, having a policy in place doesn’t mean the state authorization team’s work is done. Rather, the policy serves as a starting point for new state authorization conversations and allows for continual updates and refinement through a formal process with our stakeholders.

Now, education and outreach are more important than ever as regulations evolve, new online programs are approved, and new staff join the university. The team continues to educate the university community on the link between compliance and Ohio State’s core values through a monthly newsletter, regular check-ins, and a faculty and staff state authorization web page. In addition to communicating about state authorization, the team also works to consistently improve compliance and data management processes.

Lessons Learned

Looking back at Ohio State’s compliance progress, we learned some important key lessons along the way:

Linking compliance to Ohio State’s core mission helped stakeholders connect to the issue and be motivated to partner in achieving common goals.
It’s about the journey. The policy approval process was more valuable than the policy itself.
A successful state authorization team should focus equally on 1) compliance and data management and 2) continual education and outreach.

There is so much more we can learn and achieve as a community when we collaborate and share ideas. We hope this reflection of our journey is useful to you in your work, but we hope this is also the start of a new partnership. Let us know what information and experiences have resonated with you and what actions or strategies you’ve found to be impactful in your college, at your institution, or in your system.

Lisa Siefker
Program Manager
The Ohio State University

Robert Griffiths
Associate Vice President
Office of Distance Education and eLearning
The Ohio State University

Collaboration/Community, Online Learning, Professional Licensure, Regulation, SAN, State Authorization, Student Success, WCET

Practice

Generation Z Engaged in the Classroom

By Erin Noelle Walton

March 6, 2019

3 Comments

Vickie S. Cook, Executive Director of the Center for Online Learning, Research and Service at the University of Illinois Springfield, explores the strengths of the innovative and eager Generation Z students. In her blog, she depicts the unique story and gifts offered by this generation within an academic and professional context. As invested educators, we face the inherent challenge of engaging Generation Z students, and yet, we are inspired by the ways our students teach us. Enjoy this captivating and thoughtful blog.

–Erin Walton, Contract Editor with WCET

Who actually owns the nostalgia that surrounds Star Wars? Britt (2015) penned an interesting article that examines the movie saga that defies generational ownership. The link is as follows: https://www.thedailybeast.com/which-generation-owns-star-wars-nostalgia Indeed, the trailer for The Force Awakens ensures that Star Wars connects as a fan-favorite across generations by using the tagline, Every Generation Has a Story to Tell. In case you have forgotten the details, you can find the You Tube video here. Each generation, from the Baby Boomers (Born 1946 – 1965) through Generation Z (Born 1995 – 2012), has a story to tell and retains a piece of the Star Wars nostalgia for their own.

Higher Education also creates a sense of nostalgia for many people as we think back to our days in the classroom, on the quad, and learning and exploring many elements, creating and crafting, discussing and debating, and generally expanding what we knew, what we could know, and where we might go. Whether you fall into the Boomer category, are categorized as Gen X (1966 – 1976), Millennials (1998 – 2006) or Generation Z, we have a few characteristics in common. The exploration of similarities within birth year is not without flaw. Individuals are just that, individual, and many variables create the thinking and development of each unique individual. Without creating stereotypes or biases, let’s explore some similarities as we reflect about today’s college students, those who falls within the birth years of 1009 – 2012. Let us consider the story this generation has to tell.

Defining Generation Z

First, it is important to understand that Generation Z and the Millennial Generation are two very separate groups of individuals who have strikingly different characteristics and approaches to their expectations for classroom (virtual or physical) experiences. A father-son team, David and Jonah Stillman, provide a good look at the differences between Millenials and Generation Z students (2017) and how these differences effect the workplace.

It is easy to be critical of a generation that focuses on screen time more than conversations; virtual social circles rather than real social circles. These individuals and many others are experiencing depression at ever increasing rates and are as comfortable in the digital world as they are in the virtual world. However, to paint these students in a negative light would be greatly reducing the impact of their value, creativity, and ability to be thoughtfully-minded young scholars. Focusing on the negative would take our focus away from creating a student-centered approach in meeting the needs of Gen Z students. These students come to our colleges and universities with tremendous curiosity, hope for the future, and the ability to be strong future leaders within our society. This group of students also has a strong work ethic and want to make a difference with their work and their lives. Let’s unpack a few of the limitations, strengths, and teaching strategies we should consider when we engage Generation Z students in the learning process.

The Limitations of Gen Z Students

There are a number of limitations that Gen Z students bring to the classroom, as do all students. As we design courses and develop teaching strategies to impact the learning experiences for Gen Z students, we should consider the five characteristics that are shared most often by this group of students.

Weak socialization is the characteristic that is most often associated with students born between 1995-2012. Dependence upon devices and the intense connection between the digital and the physical has created fewer socialization experiences for these students. Kaplan (2017) coined the term “phigital” to address this interdependence on the digital and the physical realms. Areas such as appropriate ways to be introduced to others, ability to chat informally, appropriate ways to express ideas, and making eye contact can be very difficult for the Gen Z student.

As a result of device dependence and the ability to move quickly and efficiently between and among apps, websites, and documents, Gen Z students also demonstrate limited attention spans (8-10 seconds). This limitation is often misunderstood as meaning a Gen Z student cannot focus more than 20 seconds. This, however, is a misconception. The attention of the Gen Z students must be caught within 8-10 seconds for these students to choose to focus on any of a number of items vying for their attention within either the physical or digital space.

Additionally, Gen Z has a tremendous reliance upon technology. This reliance can arguably be a strength or a limitation. The limitation of this heavy reliance creates a challenge for students when faculty choose not to use or perhaps not even acknowledge use of technology in the classroom and fails to prepare Gen Z students to utilize technology effectively in the workforce.

Gen Z students blur the physical and virtual worlds. For these students, physical and virtual environments overlap. They spend time in the current physical world and then seamlessly move into the virtual space. Because of this, augmented, virtual, and mixed realities create positive engaged spaces for this generation to learn if used to deliver content and assessment appropriately in the physical or digital classroom.

Some believe that Gen Z students are poor communicators. However, Gen Z are quite competent communicators in a variety of ways. Often, Gen Z students communicate in symbols and shortcuts as often as they communicate with words. Gen Z students have developed strong visualization, skills in video and audio creation, and storyboarding strategies. Utilizing these skills helps Gen Z students more effectively engage in content creation and content consumption. Teaching Gen Z students appropriate and consistent communication techniques both in the virtual and physical worlds is an important component of the academic experience for these students (Fong, 2018).

The Strengths of Gen Z Students

Gen Z students bring great strengths to the classroom through their approach to problem solving and their desire to make a difference in the world (Fong, 2018). The characteristics that demonstrate strength in this generation include the five key areas discussed below.

Gen Z students move between assignments and learning activities through the use of technology seamlessly because for these students the physical world and virtual world overlap (J. Walter Thompson Innovation Group, 2015). Gen Z students represent the most competitive generation since the Baby Boomers. They learned early in their lives that there are winners and losers. These students have learned that they must be competitive to succeed. As such, they also have a clear understanding of the need to work hard and earn the desired outcome. They do not exhibit the same level of entitlement as we’ve seen in previous generations.

In addition, this generation of students is less collaborative than millennials and they exhibit a strong desire for individuality. These students appreciate the opportunity to exercise their individuality and creativity in the classroom.

The Ways We Can Engage

So, how then do we engage this young generation of students in the online or blended classroom?

First, we must use technology well. This does not always mean that we will necessarily know more about technology than our students, but that we will use specific, thoughtfully selected technologies as part of the teaching and learning focus in our classrooms. We will be the experts in knowing how to learn using technologies that have been chosen as part of the course.

We must also practice heutagogical teaching techniques. While using this learning theory takes some thoughtful practice, it is well worth discovering how to effectively utilize this theory to engage Gen Z students with new learning opportunities. Heutagogy allows students to become self-determined learners through strong practice of decision-making within a variety of assignments that are authentic to the learner (Blaschke, 2012). Mobile technologies are particularly suited to encouraging heutagogical strategies, especially pathways to self-determined learning and critical reflection (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076). Gen Z students may have loyalty to a particular device, but to make learning through technology work effectively, it is important to practice device neutrality. Assignments and assessments should not be tied to platforms or apps that work with a single device manufacturer or do not work the same on iOS and Android platforms if the specific medium makes a difference for the learning activity or assessment to be effective. Use video, audio, engaged digital materials, OER materials that engage students in ways a static textbook cannot. Convert static discussions into rich and engaging discussions that connect emotionally with what students feel and think. Create discussion activities that focus on the students’ plans, dreams, and desires to make a difference in their world. Teach solid critical reflection as each learning activity ends.

Most importantly, be open to engaging with and learning from Generation Z students. This generation has a story to tell. We have yet to find the key to open the narrative and learn how to move toward the future by allowing Generation Z students to lead the way.

Vickie S. Cook, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Center for Online Learning, Research and Service
University of Illinois Springfield

References

Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(13). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076/2087. doi:http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076

Britt, R. (Producer). (2015). Which generation owns “Star Wars” nostalgia? Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/which-generation-owns-star-wars-nostalgia

Fong, J. (2018). An insider’s guide to planning for the inevitable: Generation Z and higher education. Retrieved from

Walter Thompson Innovation Group. (2015). Generation Z: Executive Summary. Retrieved from New York, NY: http://www.jwt.com/blog/consumer_insights/meet-generation-z-in-j-walter-thompson-companys-latest-trend-report/

Kaplan, A. (2017). The Next Generation Gap, Features, Extras | Travel destinations, blogs, contests and offers from Delta Sky Magazine + deltaskymag.com. Delta Sky Mag. Retrieved from http://www.deltaskymag.com/Sky-Extras/Favorites/The-Next-Generation-Gap.aspx

Stillman, D., & Stillman, J. (2017). Gen Z @ work: How the next generation is transforming the workplace. NY: HarperCollins.

Adaptive/Personalized Learning, Course Design, Digital Learning, Online Learning, Open Educational Resources, Technology

Practice

Digital Accessibility: The Partnership between Vendors and Institutions

By Erin Noelle Walton

March 1, 2019

For the past year, OLC and WCET have been partnering to better inform our memberships on better meeting student and faculty needs for accessibility. Kelly Hermann, University of Phoenix, and Cyndi Rowland, WebAIM, have provided us with tremendous guidance, including posts and webinars on the topic. Today, Kelly provides the latest in our joint accessibility series with advice and strategies on how to “partner” with vendors to assure that their products meet our accessibility requirements. Thank you Kelly for these great insights.

- Russ Poulin, WCET

In any given week, I will have multiple conversations with colleagues that might include one or more of the following comments:

“Joe Sales-Rep told me that this product from A Made-Up Company is ADA compliant.”
“I just got a VPAT from the sales rep. He told me that they weren’t sure what all of the items were, but they’re sure they meet them so that’s how they filled it out.”
“A Made-Up Company just released a new version of Product X and Sue Sales-Rep just told me that it doesn’t meet our accessibility guidelines.”

These statements kind of paint our partners in a negative light, don’t they? However, that isn’t necessarily a fair assessment. I liken it to playing a game of telephone. Many times, those of us in higher education are having a conversation with a sales rep, who is likely relatively new to the company and wants to assure us, the potential client, that his or her product is worthy of consideration. He or she may not have ever heard the word “accessibility” in product updates. If accessibility is mentioned, it is likely a quick reference and the sales reps latch on to a few terms they think are important. This information gets shared and may or may not be an accurate representation of the product’s accessibility.

So, where does this leave us in higher ed? As Cyndi Rowland and I have shared in our previous blogs on the topic procurement and accessibility (The Role of Procurement in Digital Accessibility and Accessibility & Procurement: What do we need to know?), we recommend that institutions build accessibility into the regular procurement processes in place at your institution. We have discussed models to follow, how to build accessibility requirements into RFPs and contract language, and how to evaluate a desired tool, especially when it doesn’t meet the institution’s accessibility standards. But what about vetting potential partners and learning more about their approach to accessibility? There are several steps and considerations to keep in mind.

Step One: Ask the right questions

One of my favorite things to do in an exhibit hall at a conference is to ask the exhibitors if their products are accessible. Lately, it is pretty common for an exhibitor to talk to me about the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) or the Section 508 standards, which is awesome. Still, there are those who like to inform me that their products are “ADA compliant.” To some, this may sound like a positive and I do think there is good intent behind the word choice. However, there are no standards or regulations written for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That means there is no such thing as “ADA compliant.” It is important for those of us inquiring about the accessibility of products to ask the right questions so we can avoid this answer entirely.

These are some of the questions I ask potential partners:

Has your company adopted an accessibility standard? If yes, what is the standard?
Does your company conduct business with the federal government and do you comply with Section 508 standards?
What information do you have about the accessibility of your product for individuals with disabilities?

By reframing my questions to identify the standards used at the company, I gain more information about the company’s approach and commitment to accessibility. There are still times, especially in an exhibit hall, when I will be told that the company follows the ADA. It is an opportunity to share some relevant background information with the sales representative and move to the next step in vetting a potential partner.

Step Two: Talk to the right people

It’s unlikely that a sales representative will have a full understanding of the company’s approach to accessibility. The sales rep must keep all of the features of hundreds of products straight and be able to communicate the most important benefits of adopting a particular product. It isn’t reasonable to expect the sales rep to be fully versed in all things accessibility. However, it is reasonable to expect the sales representative to connect you to the development team who may have the information you need to fully assess the product’s accessibility.

Who you need to meet with and talk to about a particular product will vary considerably depending on the specific company. Most of the major publishers working with higher education have dedicated staff who are responsible for the accessibility of their products. This is incredibly helpful as it not only allows you to learn accurate information, but it also indicates the company’s commitment to accessibility. In other instances, you may need to meet with the product owner, who is often responsible for the development and production of the product, or another representative of the development team who can speak to accessibility.

Step Three: Review the right documentation

I had a meeting last week with one of our partner’s accessibility leads. We were talking about our experiences with other partners, including her experience with other institutions of higher education. I was frustrated in our conversation because there are still times when I hear from potential partners that mine is the only institution asking for accessibility standards. She, in turn, was frustrated because she is spending hours filling out different forms from different institutions asking for the same information in different formats. The obvious solution is that we need to work on some standardization for this process, but since that will take a while, let’s think about what documentation is critical to evaluating a company’s approach to accessibility.

I bet you’re thinking I’m going to talk about the VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template), and you’re right; I am. That said, I probably won’t discuss it in the way you expect me to. The key word to focus on when thinking about a VPAT is “voluntary.” These documents are not required nor are there any standards for accuracy. So, reader beware. I often use a VPAT as a starting point but rarely make accessibility decisions based on the VPAT alone. Reviewing how a company has completed the template will tell me how well they understand the accessibility standards and how well accessibility is integrated into their development processes. If the VPAT was completed by a third-party accessibility consulting firm, I have a little more confidence in the company’s commitment as well as the information that is shared. If I see very little detail on every line and the information is somewhat vague, I’m a bit more cautious and will want to be certain that we are conducting some of our own evaluations of the product.

The other documentation we request is the accessibility road map. Some partners will have this broken out separately and others will include accessibility considerations in their general road maps. The approach does not matter as much as having a plan for addressing accessibility in future releases. Each new release has the opportunity to improve or degrade accessibility as new features are introduced. I want to see that the partner understands this and is planning for it in the development of the product.

Step Four: Assess accessibility

Assessing accessibility doesn’t necessarily mean that you are conducting manual or automatic evaluations of conformance with certain standards (though it can be part of the process). Whether or not you have the capacity and expertise to conduct such evaluations will be an individual decision made by each institution. However, asking your potential partner how she or he assesses the accessibility of the products is an important step that you do not want to overlook. The following is the information I want to know from my partners:

How do you measure accessibility?
Are you using screen readers, keyboard navigation, and other assistive technology in your development and quality assurance processes?
Do you conduct any usability testing with individuals with disabilities?

I have many conversations with potential partners who are proud that their development teams are familiar with screen readers and use them to test their work. They should be proud of their commitment to accessibility, but they also need to recognize that the experience of a sighted developer using a screen reader does not provide an authentic user experience, especially if that developer is not an expert user of the screen reader and is still using his or her monitor. Testing with individuals who use different screen readers and other assistive technologies is critical to ensure that the product behaves as expected and to gain important feedback based on real-world experience. The disability rights movement reminded us “Nothing about us without us” and we should not forget that now as we advocate for digital accessibility.

Step Five: Accountability

Being a good partner means that there are expectations and requirements of all parties in the agreement. From a contract perspective, this may mean documenting the accessibility standards agreed to and outlining provisions for the evaluation and assessment of future releases. It may also include any necessary steps to remediate the selected product so it meets the expected accessibility standard. The institution also needs to be an active and engaged partner with regard to accessibility. We often work with our partners to share feedback from students, faculty, and staff about the experiences they have with the accessibility of products. We also share expertise, consult as needed, and connect our partners with individuals with disabilities who may be able to provide feedback during usability testing. We document these provisions during contract negotiations and communicate regularly with our partners to ensure that each party is enjoying the full benefits of the partnership.

Like all relationships, there are times when a partnership agreement with a vendor works and other times when it doesn’t. I have heard many knee-jerk reactions from colleagues across other institutions who are frustrated that the vendors aren’t doing more and I have talked to vendors who feel that they can sit back and say, “The law doesn’t apply to me. I don’t have to do this.” However, neither of those stances are going to remove barriers to access and allow us to create inclusive learning environments for our students. At the end of the day, that’s the work that really matters.

Kelly Hermann
Vice President, Accessibility Strategy
University of Phoenix

Accessibility, Assessment, Distance Education, Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, Partnership, Practice, Products and Services, WCET