We normally do not repost content from other sources, but today’s Frontiers entry is a notable exception. November brings us in the United States two great holidays focused on giving thanks. This week is Thanksgiving, but we also are very thankful to the sacrifices made by armed service veterans who strived to protect our freedoms. I am the grateful son of a 32-year Air Force vet. We have not talked much lately about the inequities that veterans face in receiving a reduced housing allowance if they enroll in courses that are completely online. Read these student stories. It is an archaic notion.
Thank you to former WCET Steering Committee Chair, Shannon Riggs of Oregon State University, recently wrote this opinion piece asking for a change in the policy. We agree. Veterans deserve our thanks, and they deserve better.
Each year, more than 700,000 veterans rely on the GI Bill to pay for their education, but those who pursue online degrees don’t receive their benefits in full. We must show veteran students pursuing online degrees that the country appreciates their service by asking Congress to address this oversight.
GI Bill benefits include a monthly housing allowance based on the college’s zip code. Students are allotted more funding in cities and towns where housing is more expensive, and less where housing is less costly. When veterans pursue degrees online, however, the housing allowance is reduced to half the national average, regardless of location or housing costs.
At Oregon State University, where I serve as the executive director of our Ecampus, the 493 veteran students who pursued their degrees online full-time with us in 2021 faced a shortage of $871.50 per month. (The shortage for part-time students is pro-rated, so a student taking three classes instead of four per semester would receive 80 percent of the housing allowance).
If the GI Bill was set up this way under the assumption that online students have more flexibility, more ability to work and less financial need, our university data shows otherwise. At Oregon State, distance students actually have greater financial need: 44 percent of our online students are eligible for Pell Grants, as compared to 25 percent of our on-campus students.
Further, students who need to balance work and school—a primary reason students pursue degrees online—aren’t eligible for as many financial aid resources as full-time students.
The quality of online degree programs has increased substantially since the GI Bill law was updated in 2008. As early as 2010, an authoritative U.S. Department of Education report showed “no significant difference” in learning outcomes between online and in-person courses. More recently, a 2019 study confirmed that online learning is as effective as face-to-face education in the classroom. Many education scholars believe that course design, faculty and class size are more important factors than whether college students are learning remotely or not.
Statistics from the National Center for Education highlight steady growth in student enrollment in online courses, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating that growth. More college students are adult learners choosing online degree programs to stay at their jobs and avoid relocating their families. Withholding half the housing allowance for online courses doesn’t make sense because, whether attending on campus or not, veteran students still have housing expenses.
The rationale behind the GI Bill was to help veterans transition from military service to civilian life. By all accounts, it has been highly successful in the more than seventy-five years since it was signed into law. The GI Bill more than doubled the number of college graduates in the United States while helping to educate millions of veterans.
But, unfortunately, it has fallen behind the times. Online education is here to stay, and lawmakers should update the GI Bill accordingly.
Congress created a distinction between the definitions of “distance education” and “correspondence education” for purposes of federal financial aid eligibility. The distinction is that distance education courses include “regular and substantive interaction” (or RSI) whereas correspondence courses do not. Identifying the difference stemmed from concerns relating to consumer protection and potential fraud in correspondence education and the growth of distance education.
What this means is that institutions offering more than 50 percent of their total course offerings via correspondence education or enrolling more than 50 percent of their students in correspondence courses are not eligible to participate in Title IV financial aid programs.
Last year, we wrote about our analysis of the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department) recently effective regulations that defined regular and substantive interaction. Along with that blog post, we wrote a letter to the Department requesting guidance on the application of regular and substantive interaction to the definition of distance education in 34 CFR 600.2. The letter also addressed issues regarding when distance education programs need to be approved by accrediting agencies. In talking with personnel from institutions about these updated regulations, there were commonly raised questions, and some divergent interpretations, of the definitions. It was clear that further guidance from the Department would be of value.
Fall 2022 Update
In October 2022, we submitted a second letter (in partnership with OLC, Quality Matters, and UPCEA) requesting a response to our request. A few days later we received communication from the Department with responses to our questions that had been delayed in transit. Without further ado, let’s turn to the key takeaways from the Department’s response.
Guidance on Accreditation and Eligibility Requirements for Distance Education
We wanted to better understand the Department’s Guidance on Accreditation and Eligibility Requirements for Distance Education, which refers to when an institution needs to seek institutional accreditation approval for offering distance education programs. The question arose from Departmental guidance issues in the last days of the previous administration, which stated that accrediting agencies must approve programs that are delivered “in whole or in part” via distance education. That lowered the bar from the previous 50 percent threshold for approval of an institution’s initial or first distance education offering. We wrote more about that guidance in a previous post.
We also wondered if that program level threshold applies to courses, since that is the unit of measure for “regular and substantive interaction” reviews. So, we asked whether the “offered in whole or in part through telecommunication” language in 34 CFR 668.8(m) means that courses using any variation of distance education is now considered distance education and thus creates the need for approval of that program.
Key Takeaway #1: The regulations only require initial approval to offer distance education, but accreditors have discretion to require approval for each distance education program.
To our question on whether every program with one course utilizing distance education would require programmatic approval from their accrediting agency, the Department responded that if one course in a program is offered using distance education, it is subject to the requirements in 34 CFR 668.8(m).
Note that they continued the position that if programs are offered “in whole or in part” via distance education, then approval is needed. However, in the Department’s view, the regulations require the accrediting agency to evaluate and approve an institution’s initial offering of distance education but do not require the agencies to approve every program using distance education.
The accrediting agency may choose to require additional approvals for each distance education program, and, if so, the institution must obtain that approval. If the institution has been previously approved to offer programs by distance education (as defined by their accreditor), the accreditor may still require notification prior to implementation when an institution adds a distance education delivery to an existing program delivered face-to-face.
Key Takeaway #2: Accreditors have discretion to determine what courses are considered distance education for purposes of accreditor approval in 34 CFR 668.8(m).
Since the approval process required only one “distance education” course to trigger the need for accreditation approval, we asked what constitutes a “distance education” course. Do blended, hybrid, hyflex, or other variations count as “distance education?” That determination is left to the accreditors.
The Department thought the discretion to be important “since a reasonable treatment of a course as “distance education” in one type of program that accrediting agencies oversee (e.g., cosmetology) might differ substantially from reasonable treatment in another (e.g., information technology).”
Regular and Substantive Interaction Between Instructors and Students
Key Takeaway #1: As used by the Department, “direct instruction” means “live, synchronous instruction where both the instructor and the student are online and in communication at the same time.”
“Direct instruction” was an undefined term used as one of five criteria that a course could meet to meet the “substantive” part of the “regular and substantive interaction.” Our understanding is that “direct instruction” had been interpreted by some institutions and accrediting agencies to encompass both synchronous and asynchronous instruction, so we recommend evaluating your policies as needed. We would be interested to hear how this departmental interpretation of direct instruction may change or impact your current practices.
Substantive interaction is engaging students in teaching, learning, and assessment, consistent with the content under discussion, and also includes at least two of the following—
– Providing direct instruction;
– Assessing or providing feedback on a student’s coursework;
– Providing information or responding to questions about the content of a course or competency;
– Facilitating a group discussion regarding the content of a course or competency; or,
– Other instructional activities approved by the institution’s or program’s accrediting agency.
While this interpretation may feel limiting, it is not a prohibition on the use of asynchronous video lectures in online courses. Asynchronous video lectures still can add value to courses and should be used as instructors see fit. The only limitation here is that these video lectures cannot be used to meet RSI requirements. Direct instruction is one of the five “substantive” criteria and quality courses should easily meet at the requirement of meeting two of those five criteria.
Further, there would still need to be evidence that a course regularly utilized at least two of the five options for substantive interaction. Please note the emphasis on the term regular, as substantive interactions must still occur on a regular (as defined) basis to meet the requirements of the regulation. For example, it would not suffice to post only one discussion thread and grade one assessment to satisfy the requirements. There needs to be evidence of these interactions occurring on a “predictable and scheduled basis” pursuant to the definition of regular interaction.
The Department of Education’s interpretation of direct instruction does not disqualify asynchronous instruction from receiving federal financial aid. It only means that asynchronous video instruction does not qualify as “direct instruction” for purposes of showing substantive interaction in a course. Quality courses will easily meet the substantive interaction requirement by showing at least two of the other options are present in a course.
Key Takeaway #2: The Department defers to accreditors for decisions relating to qualifications of instructors and approval of “other instructional activities” that could be considered substantive interaction.
The Department noted that accrediting agencies establish requirements for qualified instructors in their policies and procedures and that ED chooses to defer to accrediting agencies when it comes to how it pertains to definition of distance education. If you have any questions relating to whether team instructors, Teaching Assistants, or Graduate Assistants would meet accreditor qualifications, it would be wise to run any questions or concerns by their accreditors and document any responses.
Key Takeaway #3: Many questions will have to be answered on a case-by-case basis by the Department to each institution and its academic program
The Department indicated that the following issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis:
determinations about the degree of activity in facilitating group discussions. They would not give set guidelines on how much activity satisfied this requirement of the “substantive” portion of the definition.
the specific criteria for measuring compliance with the “promptly and proactively” requirement of the “regular” portion of the definition.
whether interactions are “commensurate with the length of time and the amount of content in the course or competency” (the Department noted that institutions must ensure that they can document the length of a course in weeks of instruction and the number of credit hours, or the equivalent associated with the course or competency. All other determinations related to this requirement would be determined on a case-by-case basis).
Key Takeaway #4: Institutions have discretion on the specific methods to use to implement and enforce these policies relating to RSI
The Department confirmed information in the preamble to the final regulations that it expects an institution to maintain policies or procedures that create expectations for faculty to substantively interact with students but declined to provide further information.
In general, the Department would evaluate whether an institution has “create[d] expectations for instructors to monitor each student’s engagement and substantively engage with students on the basis of that monitoring…” to determine an institution’s compliance with these requirements. The Department noted that this could be done “through a combination of the establishment of policies and procedures and regular evaluation to ensure that instructors are complying with the institution’s requirements for monitoring and outreach.”.
An institution ensures regular interaction between a student and an instructor or instructors by, prior to the student’s completion of a course or competency—
1. Providing the opportunity for substantive interactions with the student on a predictable and scheduled basis commensurate with the length of time and the amount ofcontent in the course or competency; and
2. Monitoring the student’s academic engagement and success and ensuring that aninstructor is responsible for promptly and proactively engaging in substantiveinteraction with the student when needed, on the basis of such monitoring, or uponrequest by the student.
Key Takeaway #5: Scheduled “office hours” can fulfill part of the requirement for regular interaction between instructors and students
The Department cited the preamble to the final regulations and confirmed that this could fulfill part of the regular interaction requirements so long as instructors made themselves regularly available at scheduled times, regardless of whether the students chose to make use of the opportunity or interact with the instructor at the scheduled time. We had heard that some financial aid officers or other campus leaders were reluctant to count “office hours” as they seemingly were not part of the “regular” determination in the past.
Where Do We Go from Here?
First of all, WCET heartily thanks the Department of Education for its response to our letter. Our goals should be for a clear joint understanding of how to best protect students as consumers and to assure that federal financial aid dollars are spent judiciously.
WCET hopes to learn more from the accrediting agencies as to their perspectives. Given the Department’s response to relegate some of the decision making to the accrediting agencies, it would be valuable for institutions to have a clear understanding of the accreditor perspective.
We are pleased to have members who have shared institutional perspectives on compliance with regular and substantive interactions. In a WCET Frontiers blog post, SUNY Online announced the release of the Online Course Quality Review Rubric (OSCQR) 4.0 which has been updated to reflect the regulation regarding requirements for regular and substantive interaction. In a WCET/SAN member only policy webcast, Erika Swain from University of Colorado at Boulder shared practical approaches to managing regular and substantive interaction at her institution. And Josh Strigle from the College of Central Florida has presented on an instructional design approach to compliance with RSI at the WCET Annual Meeting and elsewhere. These are just a few examples of the work being done.
Based on the Department’s response, we do not anticipate any official guidance to further clarify any questions relating to regular and substantive interaction and its application. More information will be learned as institutions undergo program reviews, departmental audits, and accreditor reviews, and we hope to gather some insights from those who may be willing to share. This has important implications because, as you may recall, over the years, interpretations of requirements were pieced together from departmental guidance and Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit reports. So, when it comes to some more nuanced questions, answers may well not be received if and until an institution undergoes a review of the issue.
WCET and SAN plan to dive further into these responses and seek institutional feedback on what (if any) challenges or opportunities these responses present for their institutions.
Please feel free to contact Kathryn Kerensky (kkerensky@wiche.edu) or Russ Poulin (rpoulin@wiche.edu) with additional questions or to share your experiences.
‘Tis the season for all things pumpkin, brisk mornings, and the release of new U.S. Department of Education final regulations! WCET and the State Authorization Network (SAN) have been closely following and reporting about the 2021-2022 Federal Negotiated Rulemaking process. In our most recent update last summer, we shared about two sets of proposed regulations and the release for public comment of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for both.
Those two packages were released as final regulations in the last several days. The first package of regulations addresses:
The Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs – expands Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated students,
Determining the Amount of Federal Education Assistance Funds Received by Institutions of Higher Education (90/10) – lowers the percentage of funds for-profit institutions can acquire from federal aid sources,
Change in Ownership and Change in Control – updates and clarifies requirement for mergers, acquisitions, and closures of institutions (NOTE: the proposed change to the “Distance Education” definition was dropped).
Borrower Defense to Repayment – regulations were developed to streamline and improve the rules for student loan relief program if a student, as a borrower, has been defrauded by their institution.
The release of these regulations prior to the November 1 rulemaking calendar deadline for Title IV financial aid regulations allows for the regulations to become effective on July 1, 2023 (for the Change of Ownership, Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs and Borrower Defense to Repayment Rules). The Federal Register Announcement indicates that the 90/10 regulations will apply to institutional fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2023, consistent with the effective date specified in earlier legislation regarding the 90/10 calculation.
Today, we will summarize each package of new final regulations and share key takeaways. We acknowledge that this set of regulations has less direct impact on the work of our members than some previous packages of regulations for which we have reported. We will also provide a short update on the status of the remaining issues from the 2022 rulemaking that have yet to be released as proposed regulations.
Proposed Change to “Distance Education” Definition Withdrawn
Spoiler alert, upon review of the proposed regulations last summer, we believed that the top issue of concern to our WCET & SAN members was going to be additions to language in the definition of Distance Education. The language would have “associated” (an undefined term) all distance education courses with the main campus. This would have caused confusion and problems on several fronts.
The Department acknowledged WCET and SAN’s public comment and the public comments of others on the proposed rules and chose to remove that additional language when issuing the final rule. We thank the Department for listening and acknowledging our concerns about potentially confusing additional language about location as it pertains to the delivery distance education. It is important for members to consider providing public comments to proposed regulations to provide insight and request clarifications. These public comments help in form that Department as they develop the final language. More on this issue later in the article.
Package #1: Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs; Determining the Amount of Federal Education Assistance Funds Received by Institutions of Higher Education (90/10); Change in Ownership and Change in Control
Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs (PEP)
As we shared in August, Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals enrolled in qualifying programs was established by Congress through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which included the end to a ban on providing Pell grants to incarcerated students. These regulations to implement Pell Grants for prison education programs were developed by a negotiated rulemaking committee that reached consensus on the language in Fall 2021.
Of particular interest to our members addresses elements of an eligible prison education program and the required notifications when the program leads to a professional license or certification.
Eligible Prison Education Programs:
Must satisfy the educational requirements for a license or certification. Such requirements allow students to sit for the licensure examination required to practice or obtain employment in the specific occupation in the state where the state correctional facility is located or, in the case of a federal correctional facility, the state where most of the incarcerated individuals will reside upon release (34 CFR 668.236.(a)(7)).
The program does not have prohibitions on the licensure or employment of formerly incarcerated individuals in the state where the state correctional facility is located or, in the case of the federal correctional facility, the state where most of the incarcerated individuals will reside upon release (34 CFR 668.236 (a)(8)).
Required Notifications:
For prison education programs, an additional professional licensure notification must be offered to indicate whether any state for which the institution has made a determination about any state or federal prohibitions on licensure or employment in an occupation for formerly incarcerated individuals (34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(vi)).
The key takeaway from this set of regulations is that here is yet another reason that institutions should remember to be aware of the variety of state requirements when offering programs that lead to a license or certification. Additionally, notifications about prohibitions to licensure or employment of formerly incarcerated individuals is required. While this required notification is only for prison education programs, SAN and WCET have often discussed ethical duties to inform students of any barriers to licensure or employment including prohibitions for undocumented individuals and formerly incarcerated individuals for any educational program that leads to a license or certification.
Remember, earlier this year during negotiated rulemaking, the Department proposed regulatory language that institutions “ensure” that their programs meet professional licensure requirements in each state in which they offer aid. Some form of that proposal language might be released in a rulemaking package due out in the Spring.
New regulations direct the implementation of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that was enacted to address for-profit institutions that are required by law to obtain at least 10% of their revenue from sources other federal student aid Previously, “federal aid” included only Title IV aid. The federal law was enacted to close a perceived loophole as institutions formerly included some other types of federal aid sources in the 10% calculation. The new regulations specifically identify and expand the sources that can no longer be counted toward the 10% non-federal aid revenue requirement. Additional sources of revenue will now include U.S. Department of Defense’s Tuition Assistance program and GI Bill benefits. There are also other requirements regarding the timing of when a when revenue is received.
The military related aid was at the center of the call for a revision. It was alleged that for-profit institutions were aggressively recruiting military students and veterans as their aid was not originally excluded from the 10% of the revenue obtained from other sources as is required for the institution to participate in Title IV aid. The negotiated rulemaking committee came to consensus on the regulatory language of this issue in March 2022 (34 CFR 668.28).
The key takeaway from the 90/10 Rule is that for-profit institutions must expand their list of federal aid sources. These sources must include the 10% of the revenue that must come from other sources as is required for the institution to participate in Title IV Federal Financial Aid. The effective date of this set of regulations is indicated by Federal Register Announcement to be institutional fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2023, consistent with the effective date of the statutory changes to the 90/10 calculation.
Change in Ownership and Change in Control
WCET and SAN were very pleased to see the words “we were persuaded by the commenters” in the preamble of the announcement of the regulations. We do not often see those words indicating substantial wording change from the Department when final rules are released! The statement was regarding our public comment and perhaps others that raised the concern about confusion that could be caused if the definition of “Distance Education” included language that the distance programs are to be “associated with” the main campus. What made it even more confusing was the Department’s comments in the NPRM that the intention of the proposed language was to clarify how the programs “offered through distance education or correspondence courses should be considered in the context of reporting students’ locations…” We certainly scratched our heads and wondered how to make sure institutions would distinguish this view when considering state requirements where students are located and compliance with other federal regulations addressing state authorization and licensed professions. Crisis averted!
The proposed language to add to the definition of “Distance Education” was removed in the final regulations. We hope members appreciate that we are watching out for them in suggesting regulatory language that reduces confusion.
Thank you to the Department for withdrawing the proposed addition to the “Distance Education” definition.
Members with a Branch Campus or Additional Location should consider more fully exploring the changes to those definitions in the “Change of Ownership” rules.
As we explained in August, the primary purpose for the Change of Ownership issue is to address the increased number of for-profit institutions that have recently sought a change in status nonprofit institutions. The Department felt these changes were high-risk and wished to impose a more robust process for ensuring the changes meet compliance through the Higher Education Act and other regulations. Of primary importance to our members is the new regulations that amend several definitions including: Main Campus, Branch Campus, Additional Location, and Non-profit institution. 34 CFR 600.2 You may wish to note that the Change of Ownership regulations did not reach consensus in March 2022. Therefore, the rules were written by the Department meaning that it was unknown what the language would include prior to the NPRM released in July 2022.
The key takeaway for our members is that our concern about addressing the location of students for purposes of distance education was not included in the final regulations. We do not have a conflict for which we would have been seeking guidance. Again, we thank the Department for carefully considering the public comments.
The effective date for these regulations is July 1, 2023.
Package #2: Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended; Student Assistance General Provisions; Federal Perkins Loan Program; Federal Family Education Loan Program; and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program
Borrower Defense to Repayment
The Department advises that The Borrower Defense to Repayment regulations will expand eligibility, remove barriers to relief, and encourage automatic discharges for borrowers who are eligible for loan relief because their school closed, have a total and permanent disability, or their loan was falsely certified. The rules are also expected to provide a fairer process for borrowers to raise a defense to repayment, including preventing institutions from requiring students as borrowers to agree to using mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers.
In the Department’s press release introducing the regulations, Under Secretary James Kvaal stated that these regulations will “streamline a needlessly complicated system and give borrowers a simpler and more often automatic path to the discharges they deserve.” For a full review of the nuanced elements of these new regulations, we suggest that you review the description of the nuances of the new regulations provided by our colleagues at NASFAA.
It is interesting to note that this Department acknowledged the important information provided from the public comments that followed the release of the proposed regulations last July. The Department reviewed more than 5000 public comments and indicated these comments served to inform and improve the final regulations.
The effective date for these regulations is July 1, 2023.
Update on Remaining Issues from the 2022 Negotiated Rulemaking
Our readers may remember that we reported in June that we learned that dates placed on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) website (reginfo.gov) seemed to indicate that the Department was going to delay the NPRM for several issues that had been raised during rulemaking. The OIRA website provides an important clue as Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to follow certain principles in rulemaking, such as a review for economic impact before the release of proposed rules and then must obtain another review before the release of final regulations. The OIRA website identifies Spring 2023 as the target time for review prior to a release of the NPRM for the remaining issues which include: Ability to Benefit, Administrative Capability, Gainful Employment, Financial Responsibility, and Certification Procedures.
It is the Certification Procedures issue that we followed very closely during Negotiated Rulemaking as there were sub-regulatory issues that addressed programs leading to a license or certification as well as state authorization reciprocity. In short, the Department sought to develop additional rigor to the Program Participation Agreement (PPA) to increase student protections. The student protections would be raised through increasing the institution obligations within the agreement (the PPA) between the institution and the Department in order for the institution to participate in Title IV HEA Programs.
One additional obligation intended to raise the bar for professional licensure programs by requiring that an institution ensure that the curriculum satisfies state educational prerequisites where the student is located when participating in the program. Another proposed obligation intended to require the institution to comply with all state consumer protection laws where the student is located which could undermine an institution’s participation in reciprocity through the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA).
The Certification Procedures issue did not reach consensus last spring which means that the Department may write the rules. We intend to continue to collaborate with other higher education agencies and consumer advocates to help inform the Department on these nuanced issues.
Timeline for the Remaining issues:
The Department will issue proposed rules for comment, possibly in Spring 2023. There will likely be only 30 days in which to comment.
The Department will respond to comments and develop a final rule that must be reviewed by OIRA before it can be issued to the public.
Final rules issued by November 1, 2023, go into effect July 1, 2024.
The key takeaway on the remaining issues, at this point in the rulemaking process, is to understand that the effective date addressing any of these remaining issues will not be until at least July 1, 2024. Meanwhile, institutions must continue to follow existing federal regulations. WCET & SAN will continue to work behind the scenes on these issues and keep you updated on any developments. We will provide analysis when an NPRM is released and inform you of questions, clarifications, and concerns that you may wish to address in a public comment.
Looking forward, you may want to share with other institution colleagues that new final Federal regulations have been released that have an effective date in the near future. This information may be of particular importance to your Financial Aid Office, which was informed of these issues by their organization (NASFAA).
As for future regulations, WCET and SAN will continue to monitor, collaborate, and report on the development of new regulations that would have an impact on our members. Meanwhile, please continue to be aware and comply with currently effective state and federal requirements.
You can review the process of rulemaking and any future progress of the rulemaking here:
Today I’m thrilled to help kick off our Frontiers and WCET Steering Committee working group series on equity and quality in higher education digital learning. Throughout the next several weeks, we will hear from Steering Committee members and experts in the field discuss the bond between quality digital learning and equity.
Today’s post, from Brenda Boyd and Julie Straub, highlights the ongoing educational access issues brought into the light during the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for our institutions and organizations. Thank you Brenda and Julie!
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
The coronavirus pandemic acted as a megaphone for the inequity of our current education systems. The majority of learning has undergone a digital transformation, and access, or lack thereof, was at the core of this critical junction. It became evident that higher education is not a duality of online learning versus on-campus learning but rather an immersive learning experience that transcends modality. The reality is that equity and quality are interdependent in the context of education.
Current State of Affairs – Expanding Scope of Digital Learning in Advancing Quality and Equity
Extending access to college and university classes is possible with an evolved approach to academic offerings. Improvements have been made with recent efforts to further an inclusive pedagogy and advance equity in higher education; however, touting the success of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives belies the actual condition of opportunities to access to higher education.
As long as such opportunities remain elusive for significant portions of the population, higher education institutions cannot claim true success in their DEI efforts. Racially minoritized students are disproportionately affected by barriers to education like COVID-19. While all racial demographics showed a decrease in post-secondary enrollment in the Spring of 2021, Black and Indigenous students were impacted the most.
Online learning is not without its barriers, but there is no question that this method of education has not been fully realized with a commitment to both equity and high-quality as core tactics of the strategy. Thus, a crucial element of DEI is being overlooked in many higher education strategic plans; access to digital tools extends beyond higher education, as digital equity impacts most aspects of our current society and economy. However, universities that integrate online education fully as part of their DEI strategy can lead the revolution and digital transformation of higher education and support the quality-equity bond.
The Changing Role of Chief Online Learning Officers Related to Advancing Transformation and Equity
The disruption of the pandemic increased calls for shifts in accommodations and university culture, as the pre-pandemic learning model could not be sustained. A spotlight on DEI initiatives across all college and university operations platforms means that an equity lens should be applied to procedures, practices, retention, and teaching. This opportunity for advancing equity in higher education allows online learning leaders to serve in strategic, cross-functional, university-wide initiatives, advocating for human-centered experiences regardless of modality, and execution of digital transformation through change innovation.
Through co-designing solutions across campus to execute a blend of methods and modalities, creates innovative responses to a heightened need for inclusion, establish data-informed learning environments that drive decisions and move the present of education into a more equitable future.
The role of a Chief Online Learning Officer (COO) is a creation of the changing times. It is a position that is critical in shaping future culture and strategy; to remain competitive in the continued growth of online learning, new markets, and evolving learning needs that are grounded in access and flexibility. COOs are institutional leaders tasked with a critical aspect of higher education – partnering with university and academic leaders to extend access to higher education and advance DEI initiatives in the online learning arena. Anticipated growth in online students means that colleges and universities need to focus on the services they offer, how they offer them, and whether the methods they’re utilizing are accessible to everyone.
Removing bias and improving equity for online students relies heavily on accessibility. Many students choose digital learning to accommodate their busy personal and professional lives. Jobs, parenting, individual needs, and other responsibilities mean that improved access to education is the only way they can participate in higher education. This access hinges on digital inclusion with improved infrastructure and ensuring high-quality instruction and student services.
The digital divide, ensuring students have access to technical tools to access digital learning, is only one facet of improving equity in online education. Bias continues to plague online learners, as perceptions about their value compared to on-campus students place them at a disadvantage. There is a deeply rooted need to eradicate the bias, systemic racism, and fallacy of meritocracy that creates a chasm between nontraditional learners and equitable opportunities. The historical path to higher education was blazed by the white male demographic, and the route has yet to be redirected to suit any other population as ideally. While white males are still the majority in traditional on-campus classrooms, women and underrepresented learners comprise the growing majority of online learners.
Impact on Faculty and Students
One aspect of college life that declined for many students during the pandemic was connection and belonging. Still, studies show that this component of university life tends to be slightly lacking for racial minorities in general. A 2020 National Survey of Student Engagement study ranked feelings of belonging on a 60-point scale. The results show white students reporting a slightly higher sense of belonging at their universities.
Chart highlighting sense of belonging among students.
Students who feel they belong do better overall than their counterparts, including in personal accomplishments, mental health, and academic success. Colleges must foster a sense of mattering and belonging in their students, and human-centered learning is a significant component of this effort. Competition and rankings tend to fuel a university’s movement in a saturated market, but adjusting the focus to student connection is an equitable step in the right direction.
To improve student engagement and belonging, faculty members lead the efforts to uphold the quality of their departments. Quality assurance, in proactive designs as part of DEI initiatives and digital strategies is crucial. It is impossible to know if standards are being met without embedded design of quality assessment for student experience and outcomes, the finite resources of higher education institutions often leave this task up to individual instructors.
Digital strategies must advance equity and excellence in learning that is not based on geographic location. Appropriately allocate resources where they will yield the highest outcome, students, consistently and at scale. This is a tall order for faculty who are already navigating the changing world of teaching and digital learning. Course-level strategies have a substantial impact on students, fostering empathy and awareness for others and strengthening the human connection. Faculty and academic units that develop strategies in online content delivery that are based on research-based frameworks (Community of Inquiry, Universal Design for Learning, Inclusive Pedagogy, etc.) can more easily engage their students and assess learning trajectories. Academic institutions can formulate equity-based curriculum development and context in the design of learning experiences to elevate inclusive excellence for all learners.
As an online learning leader, my experience with digital learning and equity in education innovation spans nearly three decades. Navigating uncharted territories of learning to discover transformative systems is how I’ve built my career. Digital transformation initiatives can successfully advance inclusive pedagogy and equitable learning experiences with integrative, hands-on approaches that yield data-driven outcomes.
Supporting Faculty and Students with Quality and Equity Resources
Fortunately, some in the academic community are responding to the need for more inclusive online learning environments with openly accessible resources. Portland Community College has published a set of diversity definitions that may help your institution with a common understanding if you are starting your work to improve quality and equity.
Dr. Racheal Brooks, Director, Office of e-Learning at North Carolina Central University and Dr. Sioban Day Grady, Assistant Professor and Program Director of Information Science at North Carolina Central University teamed up to write a Quality Matters white paper entitled “Course Design Considerations for Inclusion and Representation.” In this informative and comprehensive white paper, Drs. Brooks and Grady outline an action plan to aid faculty in developing and sustaining inclusive learning environments. They explain the crucial role of inclusive design and provide three models that support inclusion and representation UDL, Inclusive Design Thinking, and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp instructional design model. Three theories that foster inclusion and representation are outlined- social emotional learning, Psychosociocultural framework, and validation theory. The theory is turned to practice in the final section with practices that can be utilized right away in course design including emancipating engagement practices.
During a webinar presented in May of 2022, the authors walked through the sections of the paper and explained how these course design practices can increase feelings of inclusion and representation in courses.
In examining their own implicit biases, faculty can unearth their own assumptions through activities such as Cait Kirby and Heather Fedesco’s workshop on implicit biases, Tell Me More About Alex: Helping Instructors Uncover and Mitigate Their Implicit Biases. Kirby and Fedesco use a role-play method to walk faculty through different scenarios where student “Alex” is presented with different demographic information. Faculty examine the assumptions they make based on the available information, and the conclusions they reach, first on their own then in pairs and finally as a large group. Their article provides information about how you, too, could offer this workshop with your faculty and staff.
Quality Matters is currently engaged with a 26-member community committee dedicated to improving the QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition for a new Seventh Edition to be released in summer 2023. This dedicated committee is examining all of the QM Specific Review Standards and the associated annotations to ensure belonging and inclusion are addressed where appropriate and feasible. Since the QM Rubric applies to all kinds of courses from community colleges to graduate schools, ensuring that the expectations are both realistic and feasible is the line this capable and creative committee walks as they do their work.
Every Learner Everywhere and Intentional Futures (IF) collaborated on a post by Jessie Kwak where IF’s Tia Holiday focuses on 5 Ways to Put Equity at the Heart of Instructional Design. The post looks at audience analysis, UDL, examining policies, ensuring access, and using student feedback as tactics that help support equitable course design.
Students thrive when they see people who look like themselves in their courses. It gives them the feeling that they belong and that they can achieve their goals. Inclusive images in courses can be useful in providing a welcoming environment.
Below are links to several diverse stock photography sites. When using representative images and using diverse names in examples for case studies, examine the ways in which representative images are communicating about a particular group of people. Avoid stereotyping with image use and include images that help everyone feel included and valued.
Institutions, faculty, and students can all work together to ensure a culture of inclusion is developed within the campus, whether it is online, hybrid, or on-campus. We hope these resources will help you and your campus move the needle toward more equitable and inclusive learning environments.
Today WCET Frontiers welcomes Kelly Otter, Dean of the School of Continuing Studies at Georgetown University, to discuss the University’s program to assist refugees in the Middle East. This outstanding work will have an incredible impact for refugee students, and future work will impact the lives of students around the globe. Thank you to Kelly for sharing this great work!
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
Refugees in the Middle East need education, relocation, and employment services due to forced migration from countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Somalia. In recognition of and service to the Catholic and Jesuit mission of Georgetown University, the English Language Center (ELC) and Professional Development Center (PDC) in the School of Continuing Studies (SCS) collaboration with the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Professional & Post-Secondary Education Project (PPSE) to provide this assistance.
The PPSE has three main objectives:
On-Site Courses (General English Program),
Online educational (access from partner universities), and
Scholarship and Community Events.
Begin with On-Site English Courses
The On-Site General English Program in Amman, Jordan approached Georgetown University’s English Language Center (ELC) early in 2019 to request an external validation of its English language programs to ensure that the JRS curriculum is consistent with that of the Georgetown certificate program. The aim was to review teaching materials and assessments so that students who successfully complete the JRS program can be awarded official Georgetown University certificates of completion. This credential is crucial to help the students demonstrate skill and knowledge achievement so as to help them obtain employment and additional educational opportunities.
In July 2019, I visited the JRS Amman Jordan site with a TESOL expert colleague to study the English language program delivery that was being offered. In addition to conducting interviews with dedicated JRS staff and faculty, and observing classes, we collected evidence documents pertaining to existing curriculum, assessment, materials, and position descriptions. As a result, several strengths, challenges, and recommendations were noted.
JRS English language programs and courses in Amman, Jordan are well attended and meet the general needs of program participants. This was evidenced by the strong attendance records and high completion rates. Instructors demonstrated passion and dedication to their work, and the staff were equally driven and determined by their mission to serve this population of migrants and forcibly displaced persons. Facilities were conducive to adequate teaching and learning. There are clearly defined class schedules, assigned instructors, class rosters, and a comprehensive registration system that includes pre-placement testing.
We also noted areas to be addressed which included the need to enhance course-specific language learning objectives and outcomes, clarifying policies and requirements for course completion and grading, as well as directions and policies for placement test administration and course placement.
The ELC will support JRS Amman in implementing these recommendations and we will provide ongoing support as we hope to serve more students at this center.
ELC meets regularly with JRS to support its faculty and staff by providing feedback and guidance on the curricular material. The ELC has also provided synchronous virtual training to JRS Amman instructors and academic staff to familiarize them with the CEFR proficiency scale, and to incorporate the proficiency level descriptors into the course material (as learning objectives) and assessment tools (as measurable outcomes).
Working with ELC, JRS Amman has created overall programmatic goals and objectives, which are mapped to the leveled courses and defined course specific learning goals and objectives.
Expand to Professional Education and Other Locations
The work to date has led to an MOU between Georgetown University SCS and JRS (executed in April 2021), which will extend to offering professional education certificate programs. We are exploring the skills needed in the areas where the displaced people are seeking employment and relocation and are considering offering programs as project and financial management.
Building on the success of the pilot in Amman, we are now in discussions with JRS Malawi to explore the possibility of conducting a similar program review for this center’s language and professional education programs, and possibly other African locations, as well.
“It’s incumbent upon us as educators to share anything we can. If we can recognize our privilege, comfort, and gifts as good fortune, then the best we can do is share what we have to provide others the gift of hope.“
JRS provides funding for the facilities, instructors, materials, and equipment to support the students at the centers.
To date, Georgetown faculty and staff have donated their time and expertise to support and enhance the teaching and learning quality. and to provide additional content to expand the curricular offerings at the centers.
Realize More Work Needs to Be Done to Serve Refugee Students
We’ve only begun this work and recognize that we must start by building pilots and models on which to build. The need is tremendous and the environments at the centers are dynamic: fraught with the challenges that arise when people are forced to build their lives anew in strange places with nothing but the will to keep moving forward.
It’s incumbent upon us as educators to share anything we can. If we can recognize our privilege, comfort, and gifts as good fortune, then the best we can do is share what we have to provide others the gift of hope.
Today, we conclude the WCET blog series on microcredentials which set out to address the inception, implementation, and evaluation of microcredentialing approaches across the higher education industry. We learned that there is a wide range of reasons for an institution to begin a microcredential initiative, an even broader spectrum of microcredential terminology, and yet two primary outcomes: “to improve student recruitment and retention” and “to align learning with shorter-term outcomes that can more immediately align with career progression” (Niles and Lazarewicz, 2022). Institutions and training providers use microcredentials to adapt to a number of trends such as decreasing student enrollment and workforce degree requirements and increasing acceptance of online learning, employer demand for skills training, and public demand for greater return on educational investment (Higher Learning Commission, 2022). As professionally trained and former instructional designers, we begin by defining what success looks like. In this blog post, we will present what we learned about how to assess and evaluate the efficacy of microcredentialing approaches through a variety of stakeholder perspectives.
Multiple Perspectives on Success
“One of the positives from the pandemic has been the acceleration of innovation and change in higher education – microcredentials have grown in scale and areas of focus to help provide current students or adult learners additional knowledge to help them be more competitive in the job market. The assessment and evaluation of whether these microcredentials are making a difference for students and adult learners and whether employers value these micro credentials. The next phase of the growing area of microcredentials should seek to answer the questions about employer value, industry microcredentials, or higher ed developed micro credentials, measuring learning outcomes, and more,” shared Melissa Vito, Vice Provost of Academic Innovation at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
Microcredentials should create positive labor market outcomes in terms of employment and earnings. “If done correctly, microcredentials help students develop skills that today’s employers are expecting from their entry-level talent” stated Scott Shireman, Global Head of Coursera for Campus. “When microcredentials are built and recognized by industry leaders like Google, IBM, and Meta, they reflect the skills and tools most in-demand by top employers.” Shireman also invited us to consider how microcredentials impact students. “From a student recruitment perspective, the fact is that students today, and their parents for that matter, are thinking more critically about the ROI of the traditional four-year degree. We’re seeing that shift in mindset reflected in university recruitment numbers. It’s a very competitive landscape, and universities are increasingly leveraging microcredentials and job-relevant skills training to differentiate their brand and show students that they’ll benefit from multiple signals in a competitive and fast-evolving market – the two or four-year degree they graduate with, and the career certificates they earn along the way.” The new Coursera survey published shows high demand for industry microcredentials from students and employers in tight labor market.
Kate Smith, President of Rio Salado College, reinforced that student success is at the core of an effective microcredential: “Evaluation of microcredentials is tied to outcomes of students – retention, completion, post-completion employment, and wages, along with structured qualitative feedback from learners, employers, and related faculty and staff.” Microcredentials can provide students with early exposure to career choices, helping students to “build confidence to continue their post-secondary education” and also to reinforce or redirect career choices.
For former Mesa Community College student, Sam McFadden, a two-week, full-time “wire harness bootcamp quite literally changed my life, and has put me in a position to be successful in my career, and complete my education. Three years ago, it would have been difficult to imagine that I would be where I am today.” Today, Sam is employed by Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company.
Jude Chudi Okpala, Professor of Instruction at the Department of Philosophy and Classics at The University of Texas at San Antonio explained what success should look like for students. “Success in a critical thinking microcredential, for example, consists in application of critical thinking on a concrete and real problem. Looking at students’ work in such microcredentials, one sees a correspondence between the objectives and the learning outcomes for the microcredential: for example, evidence of logic in addition to effective understanding of complexity and the relationship between the problem and solution. Invariably, a successful microcredential in critical thinking should reveal independent thinking and the students’ ability to solve a concrete problem. The microcredential should demonstrate without ambiguity the students’ skill in critical thinking/problem-solving.”
Lisa Larson, President of Eastern Maine Community College, Ed Design Lab, Designer in Residence believes “micropathways are the gateway to transformation” because this demonstrates “we are committed to transforming our institution to meet the needs of those who need us most.” Larson emphasized the need to measure the engagement, student and employer value proposition, and impact after completion. For example, getting employers to include microcredentials in their recruitment, hiring, and promotion practices are metrics of success. In short, Larson asks “Who did the microcredential make a difference for, and how can we tell the story of impact?” Microcredentials may also increase access for non-traditional students to “break through ceilings” and “earn a living wage” contributing to equity and economic growth in our communities. Larson advised that microcredentials should be “digitally discoverable”, so students can “own the learning upon receiving validation of the competency and skill.” The digital nature of a microcredential should “create the visibility for students to take every ounce of learning and experience with them.”
Assessment and Evaluation
“Ideally a feasibility study includes a market review of demand, wages, stakeholders, and resources needed to build and implement the credential, combined with a SWOT analysis. The microcredentials are then developed with input and co-design principles when feasible, with local or national industry partners” (Kate Smith, 2022, personal communication).Data analysis plays a key role in evaluating the effectiveness and impact of scope, resources, risks and feasibility of a microcredential project. Consensus-building with campus stakeholders and employer stakeholders is critical to a mutual definition of what success looks like.
Lydia Riley, Chief of Staff of The University of Texas System (UT System) invites institutions to consider the “AGILE planning framework with frequent feedback loops that lay out the foundations of the microcredential programs, identifying strategic goals for revenue-generation or mission-enhancing endeavors”. All stakeholders expressed a desire for marketable skills, relevant, contextualized curriculum, and increased perspective of employers into curriculum. While success may be measured by the value proposition to learners, the microcredential must also be validated by employers. One of the most challenging elements when planning and assessing microcredential approaches “is the personnel capacity and stakeholder capacity; the people on the ground really designing and implementing into the institutional structures” (Lisa Larson, 2022, personal communication).
Leah Palmer, Executive Director at Maricopa Community CollegesArizona Advanced Manufacturing Institute (AzAMI) emphasized the importance of data tracking and benchmark metrics to measure the impact on student success, costs to the institution, and sector demands for talents. Palmer recommends tracking the number of hits on your microcredential webpage, enrollments and trajectory, value propositions such as course completions, earned badges or certifications, and follow-up emails for employment-related status. We must create opportunities for enhancement and/or implementation of corrective actions during the microcredentials planning phase.
Micheal Voss, Dean of Instruction at Mesa Community College recommends an “annual threshold review of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and a more robust program review at least every 5 years. Ideally, program completers should receive follow-up surveys 12-18 months post-completion to gain feedback as to how the knowledge, skills, and behaviors learned have impacted the person’s employment or next step education status.”
Lori Lindenberg, District Director of Data Analytics and Strategy at Maricopa Community Colleges explained how their system of 10-independently accredited colleges shares data through the Student Clearinghouse Postsecondary Data Partnership (PDP) to assess the leading and lagging indicators typically associated with the guided pathways framework, such as credit momentum and time to completion. Measuring economic outcomes has proven a little harder for some institutions. Employment data is notoriously difficult to acquire yet increasingly important to track the impact of microcredentialing. Maricopa Community Colleges has a partnership with Equifax to study wage data (pre- and post-completion), annually for up to 10-years, but this has been traditionally focused on degrees and certificates. They are working to transcribe recognition of microcredentials into their student information system and also experiment with digital badging platforms. The country’s largest accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, sees an opportunity to provide a quality assurance service for non-degree credentials, yet they note their current limitations in capacity and scope (HLC, 2022). Perhaps third-party validation will promote shared standards of quality and transferability of microcredentials.
Key Takeaways and Summary Points
Through the testimonies and insights gathered in this process, we have identified that different data points will be indicators of success based on stakeholder perspectives (Larson, personal communication, 2022). Institutions and employers should base their microcredential partnership on key values and standards such as transparency, validation, recognition, and reward of skills. Table 1 illustrates this point that the measures of success may be complex and individually defined. The value proposition of a microcredential often depends on one’s perspective.
Table 1. What success looks like by stakeholder group – words commonly used
Student
Employer
Faculty
Administration
Accreditor
Affordable
Meet a specific workplace need that directly support industry job roles and job descriptions that are in demand
Engagement
Meet a specific workforce development need
Quality assurance
Short-term
Recruit skilled workforce
Learning
Student’s success
Curricular alignment
Re-careering
Diversity equity and inclusion strategies for recruitment
Authentic assessment
Enrollment
Employability of graduates
Upskilling
Retain and reskill/upskill current employees
Retention
Retention
Transparency of tuition, fees, and costs
Recognition of skills
Career pathways
Completion
Complete
ROI for students
Career progression
On-ramps to educational pathways
Completion
Higher wages
Off-ramps to employment
Revenue
New job or different job
Stackable educational and career pathways
Digitally discoverable
Pathways to economic self-sufficiency
Curricular alignment to employment
Portable for the learner
Gain more confidence in career path and future
Career-ready
Valuable to the learner
Confidence to continue engaging in post-secondary education
Industry engagement and advisory
Validated by the employer
Effective demonstration of the target skills
Equity opportunities for students
Authentic alignment of the learning objectives and outcomes
Community engagement
Understanding of how to apply the skills
Reflection on acquired competence and its corresponding outcomes–what the students should be able to do
Concrete professional growth
Relevance of the assessment and partnership with the industry/community
It became quite evident that assessing and evaluating microcredentials will require rapid prototyping with inclusive feedback loops from students, faculty and employers. Microcredentials have shorter lifecycles and therefore continuous evaluation of KPIs and lead measures are critical. Table 2 shares examples of different KPIs for assessing and evaluating microcredentials that align to the ADDIE instructional design process.
Table 2. Key Performance Indicators to assess along the microcredential lifecycle
Needs Analysis
Design & Development
Implementation
Evaluation
Institutional capacity
Stakeholder buy-in
Time-to-market
Student surveys
Personnel capacity
Employer engagement
Minimally viable product
Feasibility analysis
Co-design between institutions and employers
Marketing leads
Student completion
SWOT analysis
Standards
Enrollments
Student intent fulfilled
Identification of skills gaps
Signaling completion
Alignment to industry jobs
Feedback about the positive outcomes of the microcredential
Technology needs
Transparency, validation, recognition and reward of skills
Employment opportunities
Revenue generation
How and where the student shares the microcredential
Employer integrates into recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion processes
Content quality
Improve the design of the credential
Contributors
A heartfelt thank you to all the expert interviewees lending their time, leading this transformative movement in higher education, designing these critical learning experiences, and for helping us to measure what matters most. Interviewees included:
Dr. Lisa Larson, President of Eastern Maine Community College, Ed Design Lab, Designer in Residence
Lori Lindenberg, District Director of Data Analytics and Strategy – Maricopa Community Colleges
Dr. Jude Chudi Okpala, Professor of Instruction- Department of Philosophy and Classics – The University of Texas at San Antonio
Leah Palmer, Executive Director – Arizona Advanced Manufacturing Institute (AzAMI) – Maricopa Community Colleges
Lydia Riley, Chief of Staff – The University of Texas System
Scott Shireman, Global Head of Coursera for Campus
Dr. Kate Smith, President – Rio Salado College- Maricopa Community Colleges
Dr. Melissa Vito, Vice Provost of Academic Innovation – The University of Texas at San Antonio
Michael Voss, Dean of Instruction – Mesa Community College – Maricopa Community Colleges
With today’s post, our steering committee work group discusses the implementation stage of a microcredentialling program. The authors call upon several experts in the field to share lessons learned from their experiences implementing microcredential programming at their institution.
Thank you to those interviewed and the WCET Steering Committee working group for this outstanding series!
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
Launching or growing a mircocredential program requires coordination and thoughtful planning. Luckily there are others who have traveled this path before you and the microcredential community is one that is happy to share their lessons with others.
Key aspects of a successful implementation include:
Creating a framework and process that can meet your needs today and into the future.
Building a structure for the stakeholders to have a voice in the development and management of a program.
Making sure your policies are built to uphold the integrity of your work and your institutional value.
To better highlight the implementation phase of a microcredential program, we drew upon the expertise of four talented and engaged members of the WCET community to share their experience and wisdom.
Q&A With Experts
Please note, some responses have been edited for space and clarity.
Q: Why did you start your microcredential program? Did you have a specific purpose or reason for starting?
Jennifer Dale, Community College of Aurora:
We want to be an agent of change for students’ social and economic mobility.
Microcredentialing allows students to access the key skills and content knowledge to enter into their field faster, at a higher earning potential, and with the option of returning to stack their credentials further to advance intheir respective roles.
Lesley Voigt, Madison College:
We brought micro-credentials to campus in 2012 as a way to help validate and verify the learning that takes place within our Continuing Education courses.
We were hearing far too often that our earners as well as our/their employers wanted something more than just an “S” or a “U” on a transcript. Building out credentials that required some sort of assessment helped the badge consumers verify that knowledge transfer took place.
Mark Hobson, SNHU:
During the redevelopment of our MBA program content, we determined industry recognized credentials are a high-value proposition to reinforce program content and for the career development of learners. We selected a program partner, Wiley, to produce and deliver these credentials that had a business partnership with Association of International Certified Professional Accountants (AICPA).
We asked for credentials to cover technical, managerial and leadership skills. Two graded credentials are included in every course and an option for about 20 other valuable credentials. The credentials skills such as MS Excel, PowerBI, Coaching and Mentoring, Critical Thinking, Project Management and more The reasonable cost of the credentials ($30.00 each) is bundled with student learning resources for every course. The credentials are free to all MBA faculty members.
Anne Reed, University at Buffalo:
The University at Buffalo (UB) is part of the State University of New York (SUNY) system, which released a policy framework for microcredentials back in 2018.
This framework inspired us to develop a pilot, as we saw the potential for microcredentials to help students meet their individual academic and professional goals.
Q: What were the crucial implementation steps or processes that helped you to achieve your success?
Aurora: We are in the midst of establishing our microcredentials. It has taken collaboration, research, communication, and key partnerships outside of the institution to make the progress we have. We are hoping to launch many of our key microcredentials in the Spring of 2023.
Madison College: For us, I think it was the opportunity to try different things knowing that if they did not work, we could find a way to back out, adjust, and pivot if needed. In addition to that, it was and continues to be necessary to have someone or a group of people responsible for the oversight of the program. Once we started to have some initial success in non-credit, we were able to gradually expand into degree programming, customized employer training, and other areas of our college. As that showed more success our administration fully bought in and authorized the creation of our Digital Credentials Institute.
SNHU: Important steps include ease of access for students to the credential within the learning management software (LMS). Additionally, we related the learning within the course content to the course competencies and program outcomes. Finally, we spent time and resources teaching and encouraging students to display their badges in their social media content to promote personal branding.
Buffalo: We instated a centralized office (Office of Microcredentials) and spent almost a full year planning and developing processes before launching our first microcredentials. Developing a communication plan early on allowed us to build awareness of microcredentials and clarity around their purpose and benefits to all stakeholders.
A centralized office has been critical to ensuring our efforts are well-coordinated, as microcredential development and implementation requires collaboration across many offices and units (e.g., academic departments, registrar). A centralized office has also allowed us to instate a faculty governance process that assures our microcredentials meet quality standards, and appropriately fit into, or complement, existing programs.
Q: Looking back, what were your biggest hindrances to progress?
Aurora: Navigating the many different layers of varying processes is not necessarily a hindrance, but an opportunity to be intentional with every step. And, it takes time to navigate those processes, which can slow progress but ultimately lead to better outcomes.
Madison College: Probably our biggest hindrance was just acceptance that micro-credentials/digital badges were a real thing, not just a novelty, and could have real value in the market. It took some time to get faculty buy-in, but once some early adopters moved forward it has literally exploded on our campuses.
SNHU: The biggest hindrance was finding a business partner who understood our vision and could deliver a robust bundle of products to support each course in the program. We wanted one partner to work on the design that had the right textbooks, credentials, videos, podcasts, animated videos, and research that matched our vision and the learners’ needs. We spent several months meeting with different professional teams. While all the learning resource vendors had high quality products, we chose Wiley and AICPA because they were able to meet all needs. A second hindrance was designing the links within the LMS that were easy and seamless for students. We did not want students to “work” at getting to the content. The work is in learning and achieving the credentials and not maneuvering through multiple gates to access the tool.
Q: What were your “go to” resources?
Aurora: State data informing the industries of focus, workforce data, industry advisory boards, finding resources, and partnerships through organizations like The Educational Design Lab, as well as with colleagues in the respective work groups.
Madison College: There were very few organizations especially in higher ed that were utilizing digital badges when we first started (2012). In those early years, we spent a lot of time building the plane while flying…but one of the biggest influences we had would be the IBM program.
Buffalo: The SUNY microcredential policy framework has been a great resource for UB, and I encourage anyone implementing microcredentials in higher education to consider adopting the guiding principles of the framework.
I am fortunate to have a community of like-minded practitioners across the state who also oversee microcredential programs. For me, community is a critical resource as it provides an opportunity to share practices, explore new ideas, and learn in a manner that is informal and risk-free.
The professional organization UPCEA is an excellent resource for HED professionals who work with alternative credentials in any capacity. Over the years I have had the privilege to work with UPCEA in a variety of capacities, including as a contributor to the Hallmarks of Excellence in Credential Innovation, which is essential reading for anyone developing a microcredential strategy or managing the procedural aspects thereof.
Q: Has your microcredential program become embedded in the fabric of your institutional operations? If so, how have you accomplished this?
Madison College: Yes, but it definitely did not happen overnight. We had to prove that these credentials were something people (earners/employers, etc.…) wanted. In addition to that, we needed a plan/policy for how they would be utilized, what the value of them would be, the graphic images, all of the pieces that make the program successful and scalable.
Currently, one of the most integrated processes utilizing digital badges are our Articulation badges, similar to Credit for Prior Learning, which flows through our Admissions office. These badges have played a key role in helping us build and maintain community-based organization partnerships while also providing pathways into education.
SNHU: As a result of the learning and success of implementing credentials in the MBA, we were able to implement similar tools in our Accounting and Human Resources programs. These learners will now have additional tools to enhance their career potential and professional development.
Buffalo: We have been able to effectively integrate microcredentials into UB’s systems and processes. We are fortunate to have the support of university leadership, particularly our Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (VPAA), who has supported and championed microcredentials since we began this initiative. Undoubtedly, when adding a new type of credential to an institution’s portfolio, more work will ensue. This includes new procedures for administrative offices, and added responsibility for faculty who develop microcredentials and support students in earning them. This would be much more difficult, if not impossible, without trust in, and respect for, the leadership behind these efforts.
Q: What implementation advice do you have for others?
Aurora: Allow for the time it takes to do this work well. Partner across positions within and external from the organization. Seek significant industry input, and make it an iterative process.
Make sure you have someone or a group of people responsible for your program. All badge creation should flow through them, at least initially to help maintain integrity.
Make sure your imagery represents your organization first and foremost – you are the value!
Create policy to help ensure integrity. Misrepresenting the value of one microcredential can potentially devalue all of your microcredentials.
It’s easy to think about opportunities that are right in front of you, but to build a program that’s scalable, think big picture and don’t be afraid to take risks!
Last but not least, many organizations I speak with tend to assume microcredentials need to be something new. I guarantee there are amazing things happening at your organization that no one knows about that you could package into a microcredential.
SNHU: One of the tenants of Total Quality Management (TQM) is developing business partnerships with outside firms who understand your own vision and mission. Your success is their success. Having one vendor to manage your “supply chain” of credentialing is both a benefit and a challenge. A benefit is having a trustworthy partnership. A challenge is getting all the needed name brand products from one source. We were able to maximize the benefit and overcome the challenges through hard work and on-going transparent communication with Wiley and AICPA.
Buffalo: Use your existing systems (e.g., SIS, LMS) and processes (e.g., curricular review) for developing and implementing microcredentials. This will improve efficiency and help internal stakeholders understand that microcredentials are a component of your institution’s portfolio, and not just a fad or inferior to other types of credentials.
In summary, the implementation stage is where your institution can start to really impact your community, take your time to identify what is working and what can be improved as you move forward.
We would like to thank the following individuals who generously helped with this blog:
Anne Reed, Director – Office of Micro-Credentials, University at Buffalo.
Mark F. Hobson, Ph.D., Senior Associate Dean of Business, Southern New Hampshire University.
Lesley Voigt, Director, Digital Credentials Institute, Madison College.
Jenn Dale, Dean of Online and Blended Learning, Community College of Aurora.
Can you blame students, faculty, administrators, and the general public for being confused about all the terms we use?
One of the top three issues that the WCET Steering Committee sought to pursue in 2022 was a focus on sorting through these definitions. This year, there have been discussions on wcetMIX about how institutions are struggling with definitions that have once-again shifted in the post-COVID institutional environment…and the frustrations around that shift.
There are several works coming your way in the coming months…
The Faculty and Administrators View
What do faculty and administrators think about the definitions of common digital learning terms?
The Canadian Distance Learning Research Association (CDLRA) included some simple definitions of common terms in a survey they recently conducted. WCET engaged Nicole Johnson (who also heads the CDLRA) and Jeff Seaman (Bay View Analytics) to adapt and add to the survey for use in the United States. The first part of the survey asks about agreement of a simple definition of the following types of learning: “in-person,” “online,” “hybrid,” “hyflex,” “synchronous,” and “asynchronous.” We sought input from faculty and administrators from throughout the country using both targeted sampling and open calls to participate. For the latter, we greatly appreciated the help of the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), Quality Matters, and UPCEA in promoting their members to take the survey.
A discussion session will be held at the WCET Annual Meeting on “Unraveling the Tangle of Digital Learning Definitions.” Shannon Riggs, Oregon State University eCampus, and Brenda Boyd, Quality Matters will engage participants in interactive sharing of what terms work or do not work in your settings…and uncover what future actions need to be taken to untie this digital knot. Join us on October 20 at 11:45 AM.
Discussion questions posed to the WCET community through our online platform, wcetMIX, about the results and your views of definitions.
The Policy View
What are the policy expectations for the “distance education” definition?
In the past we have written several times about the definitions of “distance education,” which is the commonly used term by policymakers whether federal, state, accreditors, or others. Our posts included:
IPEDS asks institutions to follow their definitions in reporting enrollments, but we look at the different policies institutions must use to comply – October 2014 – Using a Texas institution as an example, we showed: “As shown with the ‘distance education’ definition examples, a college in Texas would need to report distance education as 51+% of a course to SACS, 86+% of a course to its Coordinating Board, and nearly 100% of a course to IPEDS. You can see the difficulties they face.”
Definitions and Delineations – November 2017 – IPEDS asked for insight on distance education definitions and we provided a list of variations by agency. To quote: “As you will see below…it’s a mess.”
Definitions in the most recent Department of Education Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – August 2022 – The Department claims: “This addition clarifies how an institution’s programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses should be considered in the context of reporting students’ locations…” We respond: “We worry it will have the opposite result without careful and comprehensive guidance.”
This fall, we will release a fresh analysis of “distance education” definitions used by federal agencies, states, accreditors, and others. We want to show that the variations in definitions that institutions face in regulations persist and that this may cause continued challenges for institutions trying to comply with requirements that vary by oversight agency.
Earlier this year we conducted a focus group of students from throughout the U.S. Rather than asking them about definitions, we asked them about what they need to know about their courses before they enroll in a course.
Essentially, the definitions don’t always matter.
Students need to know what is expected of them in terms of what, where, and when they need to participate in a course.
In Conclusion…Stay Tuned
Our field of digital and distance education is shifting. We are still struggling with how best to describe what we do.
Thank you to the WCET Steering Committee Working Group members for leading on this pressing issue, including our co-chairs:
Brenda Boyd (Quality Matters) and
Shannon Riggs (Oregon State University eCampus),
and the others on the team:
Rob Griffiths (The Ohio State University),
Jory Hadsell (Foothill-De Anza Community College District),
Tina Parscal (CCCOnline), and
Kelvin Thompson (University of Central Florida).
We hope that you will follow our work. And please participate when asked to engage in discussions about how to move forward.
Password security is, simultaneously, one of the most important and most hated aspects of cybersecurity. To many – myself included – it’s frustrating and confounding that everyone should need so many passwords, each of which contain more complex characters, just to stay somewhat secure in our modern society. Beyond that, the fact that accounts can still be hacked, and data can still be lost, manipulated, or accessed by unauthorized parties (even when we do manage our passwords very well!) is downright infuriating.
Practicing proper password hygiene is essential to keeping ourselves, our workplaces, and others around us secure.
And yes, while many of these criticisms are legitimate, we live in the world we live in, and we have the system that we have. Practicing proper password hygiene is essential to keeping ourselves, our workplaces, and others around us secure.
In order to provide a bit more insight on the importance of strong passwords, today’s post includes an overview of secure passwords. Hopefully this approach will help make the subject more practical, interesting, and intelligible.
Authentication
Passwords are important to the process of authentication, which indicates to computers, websites, systems, etc. that you are who you say that you are. However, passwords are not the only type of information that can be used for authentication. Authentication most often requires that users provide one of the following:
something you know,
something you are, or,
something you have.
Passwords are an example of something that you know. Knowing the password to your Twitter account allows you to log into the social media site. However, this form of authentication can be insecure, especially if you reuse passwords from one account to the next, use a password that is easy to guess, or have your passwords written down in an insecure spot. The use of PINs or security questions are other types of “something you know” beyond passwords, but they can have many of the same types of insecurities as passwords.
The other common forms of authentication have their own problems too. “Something you are” authentication uses biometric data. For example, many mobile devices are equipped with a fingerprint reader or facial recognition.
While the use of biometric data can feel more secure – and make you feel like you’re the star of an early 2000s spy TV show – giving corporations access to your biometric data can have its own problems. If those corporations were breached by a nefarious actor your biometric information could easily fall into the hands of hackers or even become available on the dark web (again, sounds just like a movie plot, right?).
Lastly, “something you have” refers to the use of a device (commonly called a token) that can be carried with you to give you a unique access code. For example, RSA SecurID and YubiKey are two examples of authentication tokens that can be used for secure logins. While these can be used both professionally and personally for added security, it’s not universally used. Phones can also be used as “something you have” like when you provide a phone number for an SMS text for 2-factor authentication.
2FA and MFA
Two-factor and multifactor authentication can increase security of your accounts by relying on more than one method of authentication, making it more difficult and time consuming for hackers to breach your accounts. In fact, a recent investigation showed that ransomware hackers frequently give up on hacking an account when they encounter two-factor authentication, preferring to opt for the low-hanging fruit of accounts that just use single factor authentication.
Password Storage and Security
Last spring, I took a digital forensics class, during which we spent a few weeks learning about how to crack passwords using programs, first using John the Ripper and then using Python (why anyone decided that it was okay to name a piece of software after a serial killer who murdered sex workers is baffling, but I digress).
My professor reminded us often that although we were learning how to crack passwords, and even though doing so is alarmingly easy, we should not do so unless we have expressed permission from whoever owns the password at hand, and that doing so without permission could result in fines or jail time, to say nothing of the ethical concerns. And I am passing this warning on to you ahead of getting into this description.
John the Ripper, which is one of the many tools available within the free software Kali Linux, can be used as a sort of entry level password cracking program. Which again – I’m not suggesting any of you jump right in and become a hacker – but I believe it is useful to understand that there are programs out there that can make hacking rather simple, especially for things like weak passwords that aren’t that secure in the first place.
John the Ripper, as well as more advanced password cracking tools, function in similar ways to break passwords. To get started, let’s dive into the topic of password hashes to give you an understanding of how passwords are stored. Then, I will introduce two common methods for cracking passwords – brute force attacks and dictionary attacks.
Hashes and Salts
Thankfully, not all systems or websites that have been breached will have exposed user passwords, at least not immediately. Generally, when passwords are submitted by users into websites or other systems, they are stored in hashes rather than in plaintext, which creates some level of security. Plaintext is an unencrypted way of storing information. Facebook was in hot water several years ago when it was discovered that they were storing user passwords in plaintext and leaving them accessible to employees. That means that employees could have browsed user passwords in a readable format without using any decryption tools.
Hashes on the other hand are cryptographic, computer-generated combinations of characters that represent the user inputted characters.
MD5 is one of many hashing algorithms used for encryption. It produces a 128-bit hash value from whatever string of characters is inputted.
MD5 hashing is no longer implemented very often because of known vulnerabilities with the function, but it is a useful tool for teaching, and was used in my class to help us understand the uses of hashes.
Other hashing algorithms such as SHA2 and SHA512 use much more complicated algorithms and are more often in use for password hashing in the present day.
I think an example would help here:
If I generate an MD5 hash of the word password I will see this string of characters: 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99
If I generate an MD5 hash of the word password again, the result will be the same.
Hashing only works in a single direction, so although I can input the word password to an MD5 generator and receive 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99 in return, I cannot input 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99 into a program and somehow unhash the data into the word password.
A problematic part of all hashing functions is that, as mentioned earlier, any identical two passwords will always yield the same hash. Here’s an example below. Say I decide to create a long-ish password (13 characters) using a capital letter, a special character, and a number. By most website standards, this password checks all the boxes. What’s more, it’s straightforward and based on a familiar subject, so that I might just be able to remember it.
When I create an MD5 hash of Harrypotter1! I get the hash 1da62fdd9e2dc384ac0df1ae9df4459d
All good, right?
Not quite. Even though this is the first time I am ever using this password, it is based on such a popular topic that others have already come up with the same. When I enter this password into the password section of the website Have I Been Pwned, which tells users which passwords or which accounts of theirs have appeared on the dark web, I see that this password has appeared in data breaches 27 times before! The website then warns me against using this password since it has been breached.
Since the password has been breached before, hackers would have access to it and could put this password through various hashing functions so that they can compare the hashes that they are trying to crack to the hashes of known breached passwords. Once hackers determine that I use a password with that same hash, they can determine that I am using the password Harrypotter1! And may be able to breach my account – especially if they are able to access my username and I do not have two-factor authentication in place.
In addition to hashes, salts provide extra security as well. Salts are extra characters that are automatically added to passwords before they are hashed so that the result creates something unique, even if your password has been breached before. When salts are used, hackers are no longer able to find matches between the hashes of breached passwords and the hashes of still in use passwords. While the use of salts adds great security to password storage, not all organizations will practice such good password storage hygiene, and sometimes it is hard to know how your passwords are being handled by an organization until there is a breach.
Password Cracking
Now with an understanding of how passwords are stored and secured, here are a couple common ways that they are breached.
Brute Force
Brute force attacks are just about what you’d expect with a name like that. These attacks function by testing each possible combination of letters, numbers, and special characters until a match is found. In my class, because we did not have unlimited power to perform these attacks, we were assigned to just look for passwords that were up to six characters in length, so when we tested our scripts, we used passwords at or below that maximum.
While these tests that we did in class often took less than a minute, cracking passwords by brute force can become very time and energy consuming very quickly when the number of characters involved increases, which is one of the benefits of using long passwords.
Brute force hacks are impractical when used on live sites that have login attempt limits. Although that feature can be frustrating on sites that use it, especially if your account is locked for a short period of time after you failed to enter the correct password too many times, it is also quite useful. However, websites without such a feature remain vulnerable.
Hashed passwords leaked in a data breach are also vulnerable to being cracked as hackers can perform their attacks offline and then can use hacked passwords to get into live accounts when passwords are not changed after a breach.
Dictionary
A dictionary attack functions by comparing the hashes of known words, phrases, and previously hacked passwords to the hashes of passwords that they are trying to breach. In fact, there are downloadable wordlists available online that list millions of previously breached passwords, which computers can quickly hash and then compare to the hashes of passwords they are trying to hack. One shocking example can be seen in the wordlist available on GitHub called rockyou.txt. This wordlist comes from a massive 2009 breach of the website RockYou and contains millions of unique breached passwords.
Beyond just the use of wordlists, John the Ripper also allows hackers to use “mangling rules” which allow them to use their computers to quickly check the words on their wordlists as well as the same words with common substitutions. For example, many people substitute the “@” symbol for the lowercase “a” as a way to add a symbol to their password without the result being too difficult to remember. Similarly, some people might use a “0” in place of an “o” to achieve a similar effect. However, if a hacker is able to use mangling rules to search for this type of variation, a password like H@rryp0tter becomes less secure than it may look at first glance, even though it meets all the usual password requirements.
Organizational Responsibility, Your Responsibility
It’s pretty clear after reviewing password storage methods that organizations have it within their means to provide high-level password security to their users if they choose to by using hashes and salts and requiring 2FA or MFA. However, organizations may also practice poor password hygiene. Some organizations may not have the funds nor manpower to be as secure as they could be, while others may choose not to put the resources that they have available into security, to the detriment of their users. As users, we may occasionally have the option and forethought to only have accounts with secure organizations. Often however, I feel like many of the online accounts that I make I have no other option for and simply hope that the organizations are practicing good security. Therefore, it is always in my best interest to practice very good password hygiene for myself, especially because it is the users who often must pay – at least metaphorically – when our data is breached.
As a non-IT employee, it may not be my responsibility to implement the systems that create security. However, I still have responsibilities as a non-technical employee. By securing my own work accounts, I can help to ensure that our organizational systems are not penetrated by hackers.
It’s Back to School time and while the season is filled with its typical excitement for new beginnings, this year there are certainly additional considerations when it comes to heading back to campus.
Today we welcome back Kara Monroe, who continues her excellent list of guest appearances with a focus on returning to campus and remote work. Does your campus have a remote work policy? What do your staff and faculty truly want when it comes to these policies?
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
I am intrigued by the ways in which organizations of all types are responding to the forced work from home experiment nearly all of us had to do as a result of COVID. And, more importantly, how organizations are now bringing their workforce back into the office.
In late summer, I polled my network to find out how their campuses were handling the question of remote work and what their personal experiences were with remote work before, during, and now in whatever this post-COVID world is.
The sample size for the survey is only 30 individuals so it is certainly not something that allows us to draw conclusions. However, data points like this can offer great opportunities for further study in our own environments.
Who completed the survey
While the sample size was 30, it was a fairly diverse sample. Here are a few key characteristics of the survey respondents:
63% are from public 2 year institutions and 30% are from public 4 year institutions.
Respondents live in 7 states, with the majority being Indiana residents (my home state, so where my network is densely concentrated).
Only 32% of respondents work at an institution that had a remote work policy before COVID – whether developed, being developed, or being piloted. 86% of institutions now have a policy being piloted, being developed, or developed.
Governance and Remote Work
One of the most surprising data points in the survey is the overall lack of employee involvement in the development and approval of remote work policies. Remote work policies appear to be largely a privilege of leadership with little approvals from employee governance groups.
In addition to the basic data point, many comments call out that the ability to access and use remote work is largely left up to individual supervisors. One person said, “My institution has a Remote Work policy, but our academic college is not permitted to use it/take advantage of it, as our Dean will not approve any remote work.” Comments also alluded to the stick versus carrot approach being taken in some organizations regarding new remote work policies, “My institution put together a great telework policy but the Senior Leadership started implementing rules that were not required of the policy, placing barriers and limitations that made it hard to access telework. The new campus President and Interim President both sent threatening messages at different times about their ability to take this “privilege” away when employees were concerned about the policy not being applied equitably across campus.”
Supporting Remote Work
My nephew works for a private company in New York City – which obviously has private company resources. They routinely had lunch provided at the office. When COVID hit, they received regular gift cards to replace this in office benefit at home.
The story in higher education is very different. While most employees can access a laptop if they need one for remote work, that is where the benefits end. Mobile phones and access to VoIP phones, Internet access, and office furniture are rarely provided by higher education remote work policies. One person even indicated that they were not permitted to take office supplies home from the office to do work from home. If they worked from home they were told the expectation was that they would provide everything they needed. While I realize that a sample size of one is not valid for any statistical sample, it’s important to consider the underlying attitude here and what it says to the employee about how you are treating them and the importance of the work they are doing – regardless of the location where it is done.
Even with the lack of work-related benefits, employees still see many financial and personal benefits to working from home. Many people mentioned both savings on fuel costs and commuting time (not to mention potential decreased COVID risk….). These represent two of our most precious resources – time and money – and so they may very likely overwhelm any other perceived missed benefits.
What People Want
The final part of the survey examined people’s beliefs and perceptions about their experiences working from home and what they want now.
The majority of people who responded to the survey had never been a part of a formal work at home arrangement prior to COVID and only 34.5% had worked from home/an alternative location prior to COVID.
More people now prefer solely remote work post COVID (10.3% pre-COVID to 20.7% now). An important question for study is what will happen if these folks decide to leave higher education institutions that won’t allow this and seek other employment that does since the entire world of employment opportunities is open to them as a remote worker.
The bigger issue which I think the survey points to is the professionalism attributed to employees and their ability to choose work location based on activities on their calendar that day. The percentage of employees who prefer a schedule that allows them to choose their work location from day to day did not change – it was 27.6% pre-COVID and is 27.6% after COVID. This is despite the fact that 75% of individuals who took the survey indicated that they were promoted in the period from March 2020 to now and the vast majority of individuals have less than 50% of their time spent in direct student engagement.
Notice the disparity in the two graphs showing perception of how much work must be done on campus versus how much employees are required to be on campus.
What does this mean for organizations and for leaders?
One of the biggest challenges plaguing many organizations today is attracting and retaining qualified talent. This comment summed up what many offices have experienced over the last year, “I have an office of 10 positions. 4 people have resigned in the past year, three for fully remote positions that require less responsibility and pay more money.”
Higher education organizations did a massive experiment duringCOVID19 but how have they used the results of that experiment to make their workforce happier? Again, the sample size is small but this survey provides many questions I think leaders need to think about as they try to attract and retain talent in a hectic workforce.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OK
