This month, February, WCET’s main focus topic has been on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
February marks Black History Month, an observance that honors the rich histories and acknowledges the invaluable contributions of African Americans across various facets of society. In honor of this Heritage Month, we wanted to highlight the the inclusive and supportive nature of HBCUs, especially in the digital education space.
This week’s guest author, Barry Briggs, is currently an intern with WCET and Every Learner Everywhere and is close to completing his Masters degree from Auburn University. Barry has been engaged in research alongside WCET focused on Minority Serving Institutions. Today, he joins us to explore how the teaching and learning philosophy employed by HBCUs, even in the realm of digital learning, significantly impacts the well-being, achievements, and overall success of their students.
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) stand as beacons of inclusive education, fostering environments where every student’s voice is heard and valued. As we HBCUs now lead the way when navigating digital environments, showcasing a distinctive advantage in digital learning. Today we’re here to unravel the secrets behind this advantage and highlight how other institutions can follow their lead.
Beyond Teaching and Learning: The Rhetoric of Care
In the ever-evolving landscape of education, the concept of a rhetoric of care takes center stage, becoming a defining characteristic of the digital learning experience at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). But what exactly is a “rhetoric of care?” First, let’s discuss the concept of a pedagogy of kindness to see how HBCUs implement these principles and create a uniquely nurturing digital learning environment.
Philosophy
A rhetoric of care in education goes beyond the traditional roles of teaching and learning. It’s a philosophy that emphasizes empathy, understanding, and genuine concern for the well-being of students.
At HBCUs, this approach is not just a strategy; it’s a fundamental aspect of their educational ethos. In the digital realm, a rhetoric of care manifests in various ways, each contributing to a more holistic and supportive learning environment. This manifestation involves:
actively listening to students,
understanding their individual needs, and,
adapting teaching practices to foster a sense of belonging.
In the digital context, this translates to faculty members going the extra mile to connect with students on a personal level. Regular check-ins, virtual office hours, and personalized feedback become not just tasks but expressions of care, ensuring that students feel seen and valued in the virtual classroom. These spaces have a culture of kindness woven into the fabric of every interaction. Faculty members model kindness through their communication, fostering a sense of community that transcends the digital divide. This intentional approach to teaching creates a ripple effect, as students, in turn, engage with course materials and their peers with a spirit of empathy and collaboration.
The medical school collaborated with students to build a six-week e-learning Curriculum. Student exit surveys showed that students appreciated the inclusion of asynchronous e-learning modules into their curricula. 90 of 95 students who completed the psychiatry clerkship during the 2020-2021 academic year completed the exit survey, and 90 out of the 95 of students appreciated self-directed learning portion of their modules. This feedback indicates that there’s positive relationship between student comprehension and autonomy in learning. On a scale of 1-5, 5=most beneficial and 1=least beneficial, the ADMSEP e-modules received an average score of 4.16. This module was also free to the students. The Online MedED-Case E, a case assigned online and paid by the institution, received an average score of 3.93.The clerkship models the rhetoric of care philosophy by giving students power over their digital learning space. They played a huge role in how they online section of the course was crafted.
The result of implementing these models is an HBCU digital learning experience that is both an academic journey and a transformative and enriching period of personal and intellectual growth. The combination of a rhetoric of care and a pedagogy of kindness sets HBCUs apart, creating a model for digital learning that prioritizes the holistic development of each student. In the next sections, we will explore how these principles extend beyond individual interactions to shape the broader inclusivity and collaborative spirit that defines HBCU digital learning.
Creating An Inclusive Online Campus Culture
Inclusivity is a hallmark of HBCU campuses, and this ethos can be extended into the digital realm. HBCUs leverage technology to replicate the on-campus inclusive atmosphere and move it online. Virtual clubs, events, and forums provide spaces for online learners to connect, fostering a sense of community regardless of physical location. The HBCU advantage lies in the ability to make each student feel valued and included, transcending the boundaries of the virtual classroom.
As part of my internship with Complete College America (CCA), I worked with a team of other students and staff to create a virtual app that could be pitched as an idea to our respective campuses.
These apps would have a plethora of virtual clubs and activities for students. Working on this project with CCA gave me the opportunity to be at the forefront of shifting the Digital Landscape at HBCU and higher Ed spaces abroad, and the assignment left us with a glimmering hope for the future of digital learning at HBCU’s.
While working with CCA, we shared our individual experiences with technology at our individual HBCUs with the purpose of improving the digital learning landscape for future students. We envisioned apps, held talks with educational professionals, and took the time to assess how HBCUs can translate their rich cultural heritage to the digital learning space. We also discussed in detail updates to policies that will provide equitable student access educational technologies. By sharing our own individual student experiences, we began to imagine innovative ways to level the playing field for all students. ChatGPT and other Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools were at the forefront of many of our panel discussions. In the end, many of us believe AI will be instrumental in shifting the current educational landscape.
Elevating the Digital Learning Experience
HBCUs elevate the voices of their students in the digital learning landscape and their commitment to student input goes beyond lip service; it drives continuous improvement in digital learning practices. Morehouse self-directed online learning modules have created the blueprint for transforming the digital learning sphere at HBCU’s and universities abroad. Dedicated platforms for feedback and suggestions empower students to actively shape their educational journey. HBCUs understand that by listening to students, they not only enhance the learning experience but also cultivate a culture of responsiveness and adaptability. The Collaborative E-learning program at Morehouse is a great example and can serve as a blueprint for other universities to follow.
The HBCU advantage in digital learning is a testament to their unwavering commitment to a rhetoric of care, inclusivity, collaborative assignment design, and amplification of student voices. The practices used by HBCUs can inspire and transform broader educational institutions. The lessons learned from HBCUs underscore the profound impact of nurturing, inclusive, and collaborative approaches to education, setting a high standard for the future of digital learning. Now is a great time to learn from HBCU’s digital learning practices and proactively influence the educational landscape rather than simply reacting to it.
The film Nyad is sometimes difficult to watch as the titular character braves her way through a Cuba to Florida swim that took 53 hours of non-stop swimming. Along the way she is besieged by poisonous jellyfish, sharks, exhaustion, and the constant battering of waves.
We feel a connection with her. Last week was the second week of the Department of Education’s latest marathon negotiated rulemaking sessions. While we are relatively dry, we are exhausted from dodging the sharks and shoals of rulemaking. We applaud those who are serving as negotiators.
Today’s post is an update on the changes from week one, including the new proposals and discussions among negotiators and that we have had with others. See our summary of the week 1 session.
Watch for additional details in the coming weeks, including suggestions on how you can get involved.
We encourage you to stay alert as the changes proposed could have a major impact on distance education and all of higher education. We designed this post so that you can quickly scan to find the items of interest to you. We would love to hear your questions or feedback.
State Authorization – Distance Education Reciprocity; In-State Exemptions
Distance Education Reciprocity 34 CFR 600.2 and 34 CFR 600.9
In considering “state authorization,” the Department continues to primarily focus on distance education reciprocity agreements. In week two, the Department’s proposal expanded the language addressing complaints and governance that were the sole focus of their January proposal. This time they also took into consideration a far-sweeping negotiator’s proposal from week 1 to limit the scope of reciprocity.
That proposal contemplates limiting reciprocity covering only the application for authorization in each state. It would also subject reciprocity institutions to “education-specific laws.” The week two committee discussion centered on the definition of “education-specific” and the applicability of those laws.” Clarity did not seem to result. Another proposal emerged recommending the removal of the “education-specific” term and to plainly say that, for reciprocity, each state can enforce all state laws.
Applicability of enforcement of state education-specific laws upon institutions participating in reciprocity will affect the value of reciprocity by removing the uniformity of oversight of institutions across all member states. For example, even if participating in reciprocity, institutions would be subject to state requirements (e.g., bonding, closure, tuition refund timeline) at the discretion of each state.
If the proposals are implemented, the assertion that reciprocity still exists is disingenuous. Along with institutions having to research and be subject to varying laws, it would also have a big impact on states. If a state decides to apply other regulations to institutions through reciprocity, a single application would be insufficient. States would need some sort of additional application targeting their need to know about institutions serving their students. Additionally, they need funds to support the additional oversight responsibilities of the institutions serving students in their state.
In-State Authorization Exemptions 34 CFR 600.9
Outside of reciprocity, the negotiators also considered authorizations for in-state institutions. A week two proposal seeks to sunset state determinations of authorization for in-state institutions when the authorization is exempted based on: a) accreditation or b) the institution has been in operation for more than 20 years.
To remain eligible for Title IV, HEA programs, this proposed language would require states that exert such exemptions to change their state’s laws for institutions to be considered authorized by the state. Private, non-profit institutions might be most affected by this proposal.
Cash Management – Limitation of Books and Supplies as Part of Tuition & Fees
The Department has expressed concern about “inclusive access” programs in which digital content is delivered to students by the first day of class and students pay for these books and/or supplies through tuition and fees. They worry about the institution’s transparency in enabling a student’s ability to opt out. The original proposed regulations (which were discussed during the first week of negotiations) eliminated the provision allowing institutions to include the cost of books and supplies as part of tuition and fees unless there was a health and safety reason or if the institution was the only option for students to access those books and supplies.
The revised proposed language in 668.164 (c)(1) and (2) only allows an institution to include the cost of books and supplies as part of tuition and fees if there 1) is a health and safety reason or 2) the books and supplies are made available below a competitive market rate. Additionally, institutions would have to disclose the cost of those books and supplies and students would have to opt-in to the fee each payment period.
There was much discussion among the negotiators about these proposed changes. Several negotiators expressed concern that students might no longer have instructional materials on the first day of class. The Department and several other negotiators talked about the importance of providing students with transparency and consumer choice regarding the purchase of materials.
Return to Title IV (R2T4) – Require Attendance Taking for All Distance Education Courses
Treatment of Title IV Funds When a Student Withdraws 34 CFR 668.22
There are times when a student will stop attending an institution without telling anyone. While the Department presents no evidence, it does assert that this is more likely in distance education courses. When a student drops out, the Department expects unused aid funds to be returned to federal coffers. Therefore, the date when a student stops attending is crucial. Distance education has long been held to a higher standard using the “Last Day of Attendance” rule. Under that rule, if a student drops-out without notice, then the institution has to base the refund for Title IV funds to the Department on the last day that the student demonstrated “academic engagement” (e.g., took a quiz, participated in a discussion, submitted a paper). Just recording logins is not sufficient.
To increase the accuracy of the Last Day of Attendance determination and to “simplify” processes, the Department originally proposed that institutions be required to take attendance for all distance education programs. For week two, they changed that requirement to have attendance taken for all distance education courses. Additionally, if a student does not “attend” for 14 days, the institution is to begin procedures to withdraw the student.
Negotiators have not extensively discussed this issue and do seem to lean towards adopting it. Meanwhile, we have heard significant questions and concerns suggesting this may not truly “simplify” the process. We also have heard that it is not uncommon for adult students to stop out for 14 days and still finish classes.
NASFAA also heard of the need for more work from financial aid administrators. If adopted, there will most likely be significant guidance needed from the Department about how to comply.
Accreditation – Substantive Change for Distance Ed; Outsourcing Instruction
Relative to institutions serving students by distance education the most relevant sub issue is the lengthy substantive change regulation which includes three subsections of note:
First, the Department proposes that the institution must seek approval from their accreditor of a substantive change upon an institution for approval for distance education when it meets or exceeds the 50% threshold of distance education programs. The institution:
Offers at least 50% of a program through distance education, or
Enrolls at least 50% of its students in distance education, or
Offers at least 50% of its courses through distance education.
This subsection proposal offered language that did not change from week one to week two. We concur with this language as a return to the prior guidance that had been rescinded in Fall 2020.
Second, that the institution adds any non-degree or degree-granting program at a level not previously offered by the institution.
Third, when entering into a “written arrangement” with an ineligible institution or organization that offers more than 25% and up to 50% of one or more of the accredited institution’s educational programs, the Department proposes that the agency evaluate the arrangement to meet certain standards. The minimum standards include:
Assessment of the ineligible institution’s or organization’s administrative and financial capacity and
Expertise to deliver the portion of the program provided under the arrangement.
This subsection was the subject of a robust discussion among the negotiators. The accreditation negotiator stated that the proposed standards are the responsibility of the institution with accreditor review. Additionally, some negotiators appeared to broaden the view beyond instruction to other activities of ineligible parties, such as providing recruiting. This discussion was reminiscent of the expansion of the definition of Third Party Servicer (TPS) and OPM discussions from winter of 2023. This is an area to watch in week three.
Distance Education – Disallow Asynch Courses for Clock Hour; Create a “Virtual Location”
Definitions 34 CFR 600.2 – End the ability for institutions offering “clock hour” financial aid to offer asynchronous programs
Most traditional institutions grant aid based on credit hours. Another method is through the use of “clock hours.” This is typically reserved for institutions offering practical programs, such as auto maintenance, cosmetology, and massage therapy. For institutions that use the clock hour method of delivering financial aid, the Department proposes disallowing aid for asynchronous distance education programs. This was not changed from week one.
There was some frustration that requests for more information and data on the prevalence of asynchronous clock hour instruction and related compliance problems. It also seemed to be clarified that the practice would not be allowed for hybrid “clock hour” programs.
NOTE: If your institution is a clock hour program, tell us the impact this proposal will have as this one appears ready to be adopted unless there is more evidence of negative impact.
Remember that this WILL NOT have an impact if your institution offers your programs using credit hours.
Definitions 34 CFR 600.2 – Classify all distance education programs as a “virtual location”
For higher education Title IV financial aid purposes, in-person courses are offered either at a “Main Campus,” a “Branch Campus,” or an “Additional Location.” These are official Departmental categories.
They want to add a new “Additional Location” category called a “virtual location” for all programs “through which the institution offers 100 percent of an educational program through distance education or correspondence courses, notwithstanding requirements for students to complete on-campus or residential periods of 90 days or less.”
A big benefit would be protecting students if the institution decided to shutter all of its distance education programs. Students would be eligible for financial aid relief benefits as if the entire institution closed. The Department also said that the changes will allow them to collect more data on distance education program outcomes. We have long been an advocate for more data, but we do worry about simplistic research that focuses on modality as the cause of differences in outcomes without considering other underlying factors.
Next Steps
Watch for additional information from us in the coming weeks. The third and final week of negotiations will be March 4-7. We wonder how they will get through all the considerations because they have not yet started to review the work of the TRIO subcommittee.
There are ways to lend your voice to the conversation if you support or have concerns about the proposals. Briefly:
You can sign up to provide a public comment for week three by contacting negreghearing@ed.gov. Do so early in the week as they will be wrapping up issues. Slots are limited to only 9-10 commenters per day.
Contact us with your questions, concerns, or support for proposals.
Finally, for some of the big issues, we may need to get your Senators or Representatives to start asking questions of the Department. Start talking to your government relations staff about this.
Happy 2024! I know you are probably a little sick of top 10 lists for things that went well, were trendy, or went poorly in 2023. So, I’ve made a top 12 list instead.
Today we’re looking at our readership and views for the WCET Frontiers blog over the past year.
In 2023, we published 61 blog posts with a total of 109,049 words (whoa!). We absolutely enjoyed not only sharing insights and discussions from the staff here at WCET and more importantly, highlighting and showcasing our amazing member institutions and organizations with our guest authors who shared about projects, plans, experiences, and more. We had 201,515 views in 2023 from 95,656 visitors. Thank you for reading and learning with us.
Today I wanted to share the top blog posts from the year, with small summaries of each. I find this a helpful way to understand what topics our readers found important over the year, and help us explore the topics our readers want in the next year.
Without further ado, here are our top 12 posts based on your readership in 2023:
This year’s top billing goes to a post from our very own Cheryl Dowd and Russ Poulin, in their highlights of the Department of Education’s changes in guidance related to Online Program Management (OPM) companies and Third-party Servicers, which impacted contracts for a multitude of services and programs.
Like many other years, we do have 2 posts from outside of 2023 that made it into the top most read list. This year, our refresher on Regular and Substantive Interaction, written by Kathryn Kerensky, is a wonderful and useful review of the final set of regulations stemming from the 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking on this topic. Kathryn reviews the related terms and issues and provides an overview of the new requirements.
Returning for their second post included in the top list of WCET blog posts for 2023, Cheryl Dowd and Russ Poulin looked at newly proposed regulations regarding contracted services and companies helping institutions with online learning. The post, originally published I May of 2023, discusses the large impact the announcement had throughout the institution.
Not only a big year for federal regulation updates, but a big year of writing for Russ and Cheryl! This next post was part one of two posts on newly released federal regulations addressing programs leading to a license or certification (published in October 2023). This post reviews the new rules and includes discussion on the impact on institutions and state licensing agencies.
This post is the second post in the series on newly proposed regulations published in May 2023.
This article brought attention to some topics within the proposed regulations that we felt needed more focus – “sub -issues related to reciprocity and programs leading to a license or certification that are found in the Negotiated Rulemaking Issues, Certification Procedures.” Cheryl and Russ wanted to call attention to the fact that the new proposed regulations went beyond Gainful Employment and provided information on the public comment timeframe and process.
One of my favorite posts from 2022, and still a great overview of the topic, came from Kathryn Kerensky on regular and substantive interaction. This post included guidance from the Department that came in response to a letter sent to the Department from WCET, OLC, Quality Matters, and UPCEA.
This post has consistently been included in our top blog lists each year since it was published (in 2016). Russ Poulin and Van Davis provided a phenomenal and pivotal overview of regular and substantive interaction based on Department of Education documents such as Dear Colleague Letters, audits, presentations, and previous sanctions against institutions. This post serves as a great early source for us and others when researching and writing about instructor and student interaction.
We were thrilled when the guest author of this post accepted our invitation to continue a conversation that started on Twitter (before it was X) during a session at the WCET Annual Meeting, with an article on Frontiers.
I really appreciate Brandon Karcher from Bucknell University taking the time to consider the vast amount of technology available and in use in higher education today, and how we can best serve our students in what could be an overwhelming technological landscape.
The top posts this year have a theme for sure, and we’re back with Cheryl and Russ to discuss the need at the time for an extension of the effective date of then proposed regulations on state authorization reciprocity and programs learning to licensure.
Similar topic, but new insight provided by guest authors Kristen Betts of Drexel University and Karyn Holt with INTERACT123 on regular and substantive interaction. Regulations and polices are some of our favorite topics here at WCET, and this year they were definitely a big focus. This post took that discussion of regular and substantive interaction and contextualized it within the science of learning, course design, and teaching practice.
While lower in the list, part two of this series actually wasn’t that far behind in views. Part two of this series looked at closure requirements in each state and the impact of the new rules on institutions that participate in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA). These and the rules discussed in part one of the series go into effect July 1, 2024.
One of my favorite articles from 2023 was an early one! Remember when the topic of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education was still a bit new?
I really enjoyed working on this post from Van Davis on the impact and importance of the new release of ChatGPT from OpenAI. This was back when ChatGPT was in version 3.5 and our community was just starting to grapple with AI and how it relates to academic integrity, digital literacy, equity, and more.
Thank you again to all of our readers for helping us make 2023 a great year here at WCET Frontier!.
Here’s to a new year full of opportunities to learn new things and highlight promising practices from our community. If you are interested in sharing your experiences with us, let me know!
Post-secondary education serves as a cornerstone for personal development and plays a large role in shaping an individual’s career path. Such an education provides the opportunity to increase a student’s understanding of their chosen field and to develop important skills for their daily personal and work life. Experiential and practical experiences associated with a course or program helps keep students engaged, connects learning objectives to their real-world.
I’m excited today to welcome guest authors Meg Barnes and Sital Sigh from the University of Mississippi to discuss an opportunity their students have “preview the real world of work” in a virtual way.
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
How can educators prepare students for meaningful and rigorous work?
As educators, we encourage students to engage in a spectrum of experiences to test drive real-life roles and build resilient and transferable skills that are needed in the workplace. These experiences can include:
experiential education,
work-integrated learning,
collaborative problem-solving,
critical thinking in the classroom, and,
relevant learning materials with real-world applications and practical problems.
This case study offers an innovative educational method and a glimpse into digital learning by students previewing the world of work.
Partnering for Real World Experience: University of Mississippi + Forage
Forage is a technology startup that connects students with Fortune 500 companies and other organizations. The connection between students and those companies is a completely virtual experience. Students have the chance to see behind the curtain of the best companies around the world through free and self-paced virtual job simulations. With over 125+ employers and 290+ job simulations, Forage helps highlight the growing global desire to embrace flexible work arrangements and a shift in how in-field and relevant experiences are offered, and how companies attract, train, and hire the best talent.
Benefits
With the profound shifts in how employers and employees approach working environments, educators must continually consider ways to prepare college students in more meaningful and practical ways.
Employers seek resilient hires
Research conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) found that college students hoping to attract the attention of employers should emphasize problem-solving skills, followed closely by teamwork (Gray & Koncz, 2023).
Reprinted from Job Outlook 2023 with the permission of the National Association of Colleges and Employers, copyright holder.
“Increasingly, employers are more concerned about competencies and skills. So, candidates who can demonstrate experience, knowledge, and ability through their resume and applications will have the competitive edge.”
– NACE President & Chief Executive Officer Shawn VanDerziel
Real-world relevance boosts student confidence
Research shows that relevant education and job experiences influence students’ perceptions of their competence and potential. In particular, relevant or in-field work experience may enhance or bolster a student’s perceptions of self-confidence (Knouse, 1994).
Work experiences spur deeper, more engaged student learning
After students gain work experience, critical reflection is often optimized. Growing research promotes the approach that students need to develop, articulate, and showcase their skills, competencies, and capabilities (Jackson & Edgar, 2019).
The optimum engagement point is after students have had some work experiences, providing students with specific experiences to share, compare, reconcile, and critically consider how their educational goals help them achieve knowledge and skills for work. These educational experiences after a work experience promote career readiness and self-direction (Billett, 2015).
Instead of just being taught, students receive post-experience feedback and guidance from educators as an opportunity to personalize and invest in their education and its application in the real world. This approach also enhances employability upon graduation (Billett et al., 2018).
After reviewing the research, we asked those who are the most impacted by this topic on a daily basis – our students. Here’s what they said:
“After completing the Forage experience, I have identified several skills that need development to prepare me f“The Forage virtual experience helped me understand that I thrive in a fast-paced, challenging environment.”or success in the workforce during my time at UM. I aim to enhance my analytical skills, ensuring I can assess the environmental and social implications of business decisions. “I recognize the importance of effective communication in conveying the value of sustainable practices to various stakeholders. I also intend to actively seek opportunities for hands-on experiences, such as internships or research projects, where I can apply theoretical knowledge to real-world sustainability challenges.”
– Seth Walz-Jones, Student at the University of Mississippi, Second Year Student in Business 101 course, December 2023
The intersection of campus and industry
Gaining momentum in test-driving careers and empowering students to explore their career trajectories, university partners have collaborated with educators to promote “preskilling” (Monfared, 2022, para 7). Industries and organizations may develop the opportunities and intersect with campuses in offering workplace-specific training for college students relevant to a specific field or industry. These collaborative partnerships focus on building and strengthening learning through:
On-campus employment,
Internships,
Micro-internships,
Practicums,
Preceptorships,
Project-based studies,
Simulations.
As an emerging innovative method, online projects and digital platforms have grown as a trend, with students and industries communicating online while geographically dispersed (Kay et al., 2019)
Work-integrated learning through simulations is “focused on the student completing authentic, relevant actual tasks for an organization through a remote connection to the workplace/community” (Wood et al., 2020, p. 333).
“The Forage virtual experience helped me understand that I thrive in a fast-paced, challenging environment.”
– Matison Kerby, student at the University of Mississippi, Third Year Student in Business 101 course, December 2023
Insights from the University of Mississippi
The Forage adds to the toolbox of educational opportunities.
Forage embraces work-integrated learning with virtual and simulated experiences developed by employers and delivered to students through educational institutions (Cerimagic et al., 2022). These virtual experiences are designed to prepare students for actual work assignments and showcase the students’ capabilities and relevant industry skills. The modules can be delivered and packaged within a curriculum, as a supplemental activity for professional development, or as a micro-opportunity.
“As an instructor in business communication and a professional at the Mississippi Small Business Development Center, I’ve found The Forage virtual experience to be a transformative educational tool. It bridges the gap between theoretical learning and real-world application, enriching students’ understanding of the business world. This platform not only complements academic learning but also equips students with essential problem-solving skills and critical thinking skills needed in today’s dynamic business environment.”
– Derek Stephens, Assistant State Director, Mississippi SBDC & Adjunct Instructor of Management
From Forage’s virtual simulated experiences, students build confidence, bolster career readiness, and strengthen practical skills:
75% of students surveyed at the University of Mississippi reported being more confident in their understanding of the day-to-day realities of work,
65% of students are more likely to apply for a role at that company, and,
78% reported gaining practical skills through the experience.
These Forage virtual simulations and data reflect an encouraging inclination for students after completing relevant projects. The post-reflective movements of self-direction and career readiness in Billett’s research surfaced in the Forage simulations with post-experience reflections. Incorporating The Forage virtual simulations into student learning is an example of promising digital learning that can augment a student’s skillset, self-confidence, and career planning.
Image creation: Sigh, Bellassai, & Barnes
References
Billett, S. (2015). Integrating practice-based experiences with higher education. Professional and Practice-Based Learning, 13, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7230-3_1
Billett, S., Cain, M., & Le, A. H. (2018). Augmenting higher education students’ work experiences: Preferred purposes and processes. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 43(7), 1279-1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1250073
Cerimagic, S., Arthars, N., Eden, D., and Grunfeld, J. (2022). Bridging education to employment through virtual experience placement. Ascilite Publications. E22215. https://doi.org/10.17442/apubs.2022.215
Jackson, D. A., & Edgar, S. (2019). Encouraging students to draw on work experiences when articulating achievements and capabilities to enhance employability. Australian Journal of Career Development, 28(1), 39-50. https://doi-org.umiss.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1038416218790571
Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The Emerging Future: Innovative Models of Work-Integrated Learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401-413.
Knouse, S. B. (1994). Impressions on the resume: The effects of applicant education, experience, and impression management. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9(1), 33-45.
Monfared, Y. (2022, February 8). How you can solve the skills gap. The Forage Talent Resource Center. https://employers.theforage.com/post/how-you-can-solve-the-skills-gap
Wood, Y. I., Zegwaard, K. E., & Fox-Turnbull. W. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331-354.
While I feel that the pandemic brought the impact of mental and physical health on daily life more into focus, it’s still hard for us to balance wellness with work. I love my work, but this is a daily struggle for me. Throw some health challenges into the mix, and suddenly that juggling act gets way trickier. For those dealing with series health issues or some form of a disability, keeping up with job responsibilities plus family and other life responsibilities, is just a lot. I’m so thankful for the support my team has offered me during times of challenge, and appreciate hearing from our guest author today about some ideas for supporting others in the workplace. Thank you Jenny for sharing this insight and your lessons learned from supporting institutional staff.
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
Scenes from a Faculty Office
As I was sitting in her office discussing plans to sub for her upcoming classes, my friend and colleague paused a moment and said, “Hold on, I forgot I need to call my nurse back. She called while I was in my last class.”
Rachel (pseudonym) was having yet another surgery, and I was covering all her classes for her while she was in the early stages of recovery. Rachel was a full-time tenured professor, and I was a young part-time instructor, so I had not only the time but frankly also the need for some extra income, and I enjoyed subbing for my colleagues. As the “baby” of the department, I was by far the youngest and least experienced of all my colleagues, so subbing was a great resource to introduce me to fellow faculty and gain exposure to a wide range of teaching practices and content. Unfortunately, the need for a sub often meant that an instructor was sick, injured, or recovering from a health event.
Rachel got off the phone with the nurse and explained some more of the details of her upcoming surgery to me. When I had met her a few years ago, she had been recovering from a different kind of surgery: I vividly remember her trying to navigate corridors and elevators with her foot in a boot on one of those motorized vehicles that keep your leg extended out behind you like a superhero in a permanent dash in a comic book square.
As Rachel continued, she paused again and said she needed to call and cancel her physical therapy appointment. Then she needed to call and schedule a hydrotherapy appointment for her chronic pain. Then she called her therapist to make an appointment because, frankly, this was a lot. Still, Rachel acted like this was just another day in her life. Because that’s exactly what it was.
Disability Unmasked
Rachel is far from the only woman with disabilities teaching at a college or university. Women suffer from more disabilities than men in a variety of ways. According to the National Institutes of Health, women surpass men for invisible disabilities of all kinds: “Many common chronic conditions are not female-specific but occur at substantially higher rates in women compared to men. Women constitute nearly 80% of the population affected by autoimmune disease and bear a disproportionately high morbidity associated with this spectrum of conditions. Other disorders, such as depression, are thought to be disproportionately high among women for a combination of innate factors (e.g., fluctuations in hormones), as well as social factors (e.g., high rates of exposure to intimate partner violence).”
As if hormones, domestic violence, autoimmune, and chronic issues were not enough to contend with as invisible barriers, neurodivergent women also present differently than men. This means that while some facets of invisibility are unintentional, some women engage in “masking” or the “unconscious or conscious effort to hide and cover one’s own self from the world, as an attempt to accommodate others and coexist” (Nurenberg 8). Thus, women often must navigate not only their own disabilities but also decisions about their visibility within the workplace.
So why are women faculty with disabilities of concern? According to Lauren Lindstrom, Assistant Professor and Senior Research Associate at the University of Oregon, Eugene, “Low expectations for individuals with disabilities, lack of family support, and disability discrimination may further limit employment options for women with disabilities preparing to either enter the workforce or make a career change. Thus the ‘choice’ of a job is by default a selection from a narrow range of options.”
One of the most viable options for women has been to teach at the college level. Tenured faculty not only benefited from job security and health benefits but also limited time requiring them to go into work: teach classes, hold office hours, attend meetings, and you’re set. A tenured teaching position is by no means a part-time job, but its requirements to be on campus might be very part-time, or even nonexistent given the advent of online teaching.
Lessons Learned and Key Takeaways
Five years ago, I moved from teaching into administration, specifically in faculty development. In supporting women faculty with disabilities during this time (including during a pandemic), their unique needs became clear to me in ways I had not considered before. Here are some suggestions for how you can support your female faculty working with disabilities at your institution.
Choice: As stated earlier, choice is an important factor in a career, but once in a career, chosen profession, or position, choice remains integral. I have seen many administrators try to steer female faculty with disabilities into online teaching positions. Yes, teaching online only is a viable option for some, but for others, it is not their ideal. Some women faculty need the community and camaraderie of interacting with their students and colleagues in person. That engagement might be the highlight of their day. Having intentional conversations with your faculty about their options, their choices, and their needs is essential.
Ongoing Support: After a major health event such as cancer, an automobile accident, or a high-risk pregnancy, it is unrealistic to expect things to go “back to normal.” People change. Physical trauma can leave permanent disabilities, and trauma, anxiety, and post-partum depression are all invisible disabilities affecting women in higher percentages than men. After one faculty friend and colleague of mine was in the hospital for life-threatening gynecological complications, she had to return to the classroom to teach multiple students who worked at the local hospital and had been part of her care team. Catching up on teaching and grading duties, navigating new permanent disabilities, and dealing with a source of environmental anxiety took an extreme toll on her. Ongoing support in the form of co-teachers, graduate assistants, counseling, routine check-ins, and flexibility in workload and workplace can go a long way to retaining valued faculty.
When supporting your female faculty with disabilities, remember that while you should do everything that you can to reasonably accommodate them and retain them at your institution, this might not always be possible. I have seen fantastic female faculty leave tenured positions because they could not access adequate healthcare for their disabilities near their institutions, forcing them to relocate to areas where there were more opportunities for accessible healthcare to meet their specific needs. A professor’s health situation might make any kind of employment unreasonable or untenable at any moment. However, supporting female faculty with disabilities in our institutions not only helps them achieve their personal and professional goals but also aids us in embracing diversity in all forms and retaining a stronger workforce.
Here we go again! Significant changes to postsecondary distance education operations emerged from the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Winter 2024 negotiated rulemaking discussion. The proposed changes could be huge and we suggest you read or scroll through this post to see what might affect you and your students. For example, state authorization reciprocity could be greatly limited, distance education programs could be required to take attendance in every course, and all “inclusive access” programs from publishers could be eliminated.
In early January, the Department convened a set of “negotiators” to consider regulatory changes as authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Negotiated rulemaking is a multi-step process that the Department may use to develop regulations to implement federal law. For our purposes, the Department is developing regulations to address process and compliance for institutions to participate in Title IV HEA Programs.
Today, we will share an overview of the Department’s rulemaking process and provide analysis of the issues in this new rulemaking that affect institutions serving students through digital technologies and interstate distance education. We will also share next steps for you to participate in this process and how to follow the progress of this rulemaking.
Below, we’ve listed the six issue areas for this rulemaking plus the sub-issues being discussed, which we are watching closely. We have also added links to “Issue Papers,” including red-lined proposed regulatory changes that emerged during week one of the three week negotiated rulemaking process. The issue papers were publicly released by the Department to frame the discussions by the negotiators. Those who have followed rulemaking over the last ten or so years may find a bit of déjà vu in some of these proposals.
Public representation on agency decision-making bodies
Substantive Changes and other reporting requirements
Recognition of State Agencies for the Approval of Nursing Programs
Issue # 6 – Federal TRIO Programs – being reviewed first by the Department designated subcommittee.
You may be asking, weren’t several final regulations from a rulemaking just released by the Department? If so, yes, you are correct, the Department released important final regulations on such issues as Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment and Certification Procedures that include regulations affecting the institution’s ability to serve students in programs leading to a license or certification. Those regulations, plus more, will be effective July 1, 2024.
Rulemaking Process Overview
The Department must follow the many steps in the federal rulemaking process directed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The process takes considerable time. The soonest a rule from this rulemaking could be effective would be July 1, 2025. To be effective in 2025, the Department must complete several steps. Some of these steps have already been completed.
Completed:
Federal Register announcement of intent to hold the rulemaking on designated issues and opportunity for public comment.
Nominations to create a rulemaking committee for which the Department chooses the negotiators to represent constituencies affected by designated issues.
To be completed:
Meeting of the rulemaking committee over several months to negotiate language to develop or modify regulations on the designated issues.
Consensus-seeking meeting among the negotiators. Consensus is defined as no dissent from any committee members on the regulatory language. If there is no consensus, the Department is free to write the regulatory language.
Proposed regulations must be released either from consensus language or written by the Department and subject to public comment.
The Department must review and respond to public comments to inform them of the development of final regulations.
The Department must release final regulations by November 1, for the regulations to be effective the following July 1.
Failure to meet the November 1 deadline will cause the effective date of the regulations to be delayed until the next year to align with the next financial aid year.
The rulemaking committee will complete its meetings in March 2024. The Department has expressed its desire to release final language prior to November 1, 2024, in order for the new regulations to be effective July 1, 2025.
Issue Analysis
Issue #1 – Cash Management
Proposal: Eliminate Including Books and Supplies in Tuition and Fees.
Current regulations allow institutions to include (under certain conditions) the cost of books and/or supplies in tuition and fees. Career institutions use it to ensure everyone has the same tools. Publishers created “inclusive” and “equitable” access programs whereby the price of the textbook and resources are reduced for every student and it is ensured that every student has access to the textbook.
The Department allows for such contracts if the student is given a way to opt-out. Student, consumer, and OER groups have objected to the difficulty for students to remove themselves from these programs.
The Department is concerned that institutions have not been transparent about how a student can opt out so that they can assess if less expensive options are available elsewhere.
What Is Proposed by the Department?
The Department proposes to eliminate the provision allowing institutions to include the cost of books and supplies as part of tuition and fees in most cases. The practice would still be allowed if an institution could demonstrate a “compelling health or safety reason, or if the institution is the only option for students to access the books or supplies.”
Our Analysis
Inclusive access has grown as the publishers have found it to be an attractive solution that lowers textbook costs and increases their revenues. We agree there have been abuses, but let’s address them. If the Department is worried about institutions not properly notifying students (which are required by regulation), could this be resolved by addressing those infractions or strengthening those provisions?
Some institutions charge a student fee (a fraction of the price of one textbook) to cover the cost of creating, supporting, and maintaining low-cost textbooks. Kansas State University’s Open/Alternative Textbook Initiative is an example. We worry the proposed language could unintentionally harm these beneficial programs. The Department should ensure that fees to support such programs are acceptable.
Finally, if adopted, institutions will need a substantial amount of time to implement this proposal. They will need to consider new textbook alternatives in every course, adjust business processes, and address contractual obligations.
Issue #2 – State Authorization
Proposal A: Complaint Process for a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement
The Department expressed concern that states are not informed of complaints subject to a reciprocity agreement from students located in their state about institutions located in another state.
The Department indicates that without this information the state where a student is located cannot monitor if their students are protected by the reciprocity agreement.
Additionally, they maintain that information must be reported publicly and at least annually about the number and type of complaints that occur from participating institutions in member states.
This reporting is expressed by the Department as necessary for the state to receive information that could affect the state’s decision about renewing its state’s membership in the reciprocity agreement.
What is Proposed by the Department?
The Department proposes that a state authorization reciprocity agreement must include a process for communicating information received on student complaints subject to the reciprocity agreement to the State where the student is located at the time of initial enrollment. Additionally, the reciprocity agreement must require that complaints including the number and type of complaints received by States subject to the reciprocity agreement must be made public at least annually.
Our Analysis
It is important to first note that the Department is developing regulations to address reciprocity agreements for state authorization more broadly, should more agreements be available in the future. The Department is not only addressing SARA, which is the only currently active reciprocity agreement for state authorization.
That being said, the proposal by the Department appears to affirm processes already in place by SARA. The exceptions include, first, reporting of “type” of complaint which we are aware is being currently developed by SARA. Second, the Department proposed language about informing the state where the student is “located at the time of initial enrollment.” We believe that this language is very limiting because it is possible that a student may no longer be located in the state of initial enrollment.
The responsibility of the determination of location in the event of a change reported by the student is already required in federal regulation. Finally, because reciprocity is a state-to-state agreement, we question the ability of the Department to dictate the terms of such an agreement.
Proposal B: Governance for a state authorization reciprocity agreement
What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?
The Department expressed that the governing board for a state authorization reciprocity agreement that includes members who are not state representatives could stifle the states from the ability to improve consumer protections for participating institutions.
What is Proposed by the Department?
The initial proposed language by the Department indicated that the governing board must consist of “solely” of state representatives. However, while the preceding sentence indicated “solely” representatives of states, the Department proposed a lengthy list of who may not be a public member of the governing board, including current or former employees of institutions, trade associations/member organizations, accrediting agencies, or the Department.
The Department expressed the need for consideration of a minimum number or percentage of representatives from non-state representatives to the governing board.
Our Analysis
We concur with the idea that the vast majority of members of a board governing reciprocity should be state representatives tasked with administering the implementation of a state-to-state agreement. However, we disagree that a federal agency has the authority to regulate the composition of a board of an organization for which states are members.
Additionally, we maintain that the proposed language about groups that may not serve is unnecessarily prescriptive. The long list of barred groups includes stakeholders who are appropriate for the development of sound policy. Further, the language indicates “former employee” without a time frame or context. Implementation of this language would allow very few members of the public with any expertise in higher education, distance education, or institutional oversight to serve as members to the board.
Proposal C: State exemptions from state authorization based upon accreditation or being in operation for at least 20 years.
What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?
The Department is questioning whether a state’s determination of state authorization of an institution where the institution is located is adequate for purposes of Title IV if the state minimally considers accreditation as sufficient or waives institutional approval for institutions in operation for more than 20 years.
The Department considers that state exemptions are weakening the program integrity triad, making students and taxpayers vulnerable.
What is Proposed by the Department?
The Department has not offered proposed language, yet, but is interested in developing language based upon the review and discussion focused on three questions:
How can the Department ensure that state authorization is serving its intended purpose in the regulatory triad?
In what instances are exemptions from the state approval requirement appropriate or warranted? Is accreditation and/or length of time in operation sufficient for an exemption from the state approval requirement?
What factors should the Department consider as necessary for state authorization?
Our Analysis
States have various structures and reasoning for the oversight of activities in their state. The Department and groups of states may want to consider collaborating to address any suggested changes. We recommend the Department start by reaching out to NASASPS (a national organization of state regulators). Determinations of state oversight requirements are an issue of state authority.
The Department should consider that mandating new state requirements in federal regulation for state authorization of institutions where the institutions are located would be time-consuming for states to undertake and could require state legislation to make changes to existing state structure. Note the federal regulation released as final in October 2010 that required a state to have a process to review and appropriately act on complaints was delayed by the Department in its enforcement date for 4 ½ years finally becoming enforceable July 1, 2015, to allow time for states to develop their complaint processes.
Negotiator Submitted Proposal: Modification of the Definition of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement
What is the Problem Identified by the Negotiator?
In week 1, a negotiator submitted what the Department referred to as the Fast Proposal. This proposal identifies the perceived problem that the federal definition of a state authorization reciprocity agreement prevents student consumer protection from the state where the student is located, as that state is a member to the reciprocity agreement and is subject to the policies of the agreement. The problem expressed is that although the state where the student is located may enforce laws of general applicability such as those related to fraud, misrepresentation, and criminal activity, the state cannot enforce education-specific consumer protection laws on participating institutions for complaints subject to the reciprocity agreement. The proposer maintains that the few states with strong consumer protection laws should retain their authority to enforce that state’s consumer protection laws.
History of the Definition
The federal definition of a state authorization reciprocity agreement has an interesting history. The language was written by the Department and did not come from consensus language of a negotiated rulemaking. The regulation, along with several state authorization-related regulations, were released as final in mid-December 2016, which missed the November 1 deadline to be effective the following July. Therefore, it was not effective until July 1, 2018.
In early 2017, Department officials communicated with Russ Poulin about their intent to clarify widespread “misconceptions.” Poulin and others had indicated an ambiguity or limitation to reciprocity related to the enforceability of education-specific state laws when an institution participates in reciprocity. The Department sought to dispel that misconception which was then affirmed in a letter by then Under-Secretary to the U.S. Department of Education, Ted Mitchell. The Trump administration began just a few days later and delayed this regulation before it became effective. The regulation eventually became effective on May 26, 2019, after a U.S. District Court ruling vacated the delay. On October 31, 2023 new final regulations were released including the currently effective definition of state authorization reciprocity agreement that clarified the language of the definition and was subject to immediate implementation at the discretion of the institution.
What is Proposed by the Negotiator?
The negotiator proposes modifying the definition of a state authorization reciprocity agreement to directly indicate that a state subject to a reciprocity agreement isnotprohibitedfrom enforcing its own education-specific state laws in addition to general purpose laws for which states may already enforce. It is suggested that reciprocity could still exist for the purpose of a single application and fee.
Our Analysis
Frankly, this proposal dismantles reciprocity. There would no longer be a coherent structure to protect students nationwide with uniform student protections regardless of where the student is located. Neither would there be consistent oversight of institutions in the states where they are located and hold a legal obligation to meet any requirements of that state to be authorized. Nor would institutions be part of an organized structure to facilitate their uniform compliance management to implement requirements to support students.
The proposal fails to share that only a few states maintain strong consumer protection laws and chose to join the current reciprocity agreement. The proposal does not share that many states have none or little oversight of out-of-state institutions with no physical presence in the state.
Finally, dismantling of these elements of reciprocity will leave more students without protections than providing protections in those few states with stronger consumer protections. The data of the institutions overseen in each state and numbers serving students in other states is available on the NC-SARA website: https://nc-sara.org/data-dashboards.
Issue #3 – Distance Education
Proposal A: Create a “Virtual Location” for Distance Education
The Department identifies two problems that they are addressing with this proposal:
Collecting data on distance education. They wish to collect more data on distance education to inform students with program-level data in the College Scorecard and to compare the outcomes of students in similar programs using different modalities.
Program Closure. The Department would be enabled to protect students if an institution closes its entire distance education operations.
What Is Proposed by the Department?
Currently, the Department defines three types of locations: the main campus, a branch campus, and an “additional location.” The latter is currently a place where 1) more than 50% of a program is offered or 2) a place of incarceration. The Department proposes a third version of “additional location:”
“(3) A virtual location through which the institution offers 100 percent of an educational program through distance education or correspondence courses, notwithstanding requirements for students to complete on-campus or residential periods of 90 days or less.
Our Analysis
The Department will be able to assist students if an institution closes all its distance learning programs. We support students being able to avail themselves of the benefits as if the entire institution closed.
We have long supported collecting more distance education data. However, definitions are important or statistical comparisons will be compromised due to institutions unwittingly classifying the same programs differently. As we wrote last year, the Department has FOUR different definitions of distance education and this could add a fifth. We are interested in consolidating these definitions. Additionally, guidance will be needed on what programs are in or out of whatever definition they use.
Just last week, Inside Higher Ed published “Online Education Completion Lags Behind Face-to-Face Instruction.” Missing from the article was this important statement in the report (p. 25): “A disproportionate share of exclusively online students face time- or location-based constraints that can make them less likely to graduate from college—regardless of medium of instruction. This suggests that readers should exercise caution when interpreting our results, as some of the observed effects outlined in the present study may be due to selection.”
Proposal B: Clock Hour (Programs and Asynchronous Distance Education)
A quick background is needed.
Most institutions disburse financial aid based on credit hours. Some institutions (mostly those in career programs) disburse aid based upon the actual time the student spends in instruction. This proposal does not apply to credit hour programs.
What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?
The Department voiced no issue with synchronous clock hour programs, but has concerns about asynchronous distance education courses.
In those courses, students are to interact “with technology that can monitor and document the amount of time that the student participates in the activity.”
The Department has had trouble tracking asynchronous programs and is aware of non-compliance with the monitoring requirements.
What Is Proposed by the Department?
The Department proposes removing “the allowance for clock-hour programs provided via distance education to be offered through asynchronous learning.”
Our Analysis
We have asked members for input on this one and contacted the American Association of Community Colleges. Thus far we have not heard opposition to the change. Let us know if you have specific successful examples that would be affected. We are concerned that this is the second issue in which the Department merely removes an option for which the accounting is difficult.
The Department seeks to “increase the accuracy of R2T4 calculations for (distance) students, simplify the Department’s requirements by using available information already collected by an institution, and limit instances of inaccurate calculations and the gaming of R2T4 provisions by schools. Taking action and/or working with a student who has not been attending during a scheduled period for 14 days promotes good stewardship of Federal dollars as well as potentially assisting students during hardships.”
What Is Proposed by the Department?
In order to “increase the accuracy of calculations in distance education programs, the Department proposes to require institutions to take attendance in such education programs for R2T4 purposes, which would require schools to use actual attendance data to determine a student’s withdrawal date for students enrolled entirely in online programs.” In brief,institutions would need to take attendance in all courses in distance education programs. Additionally, this also triggers a requirement that students be dropped from a class if they have not attended for 14 days.
Our Analysis
The Department says, “students in distance education programs may not formally withdraw since they are not on campus.” But, on-campus students also withdraw without notice.
For students who withdraw from distance programs, the current practice is to capture the “last day of attendance.” A mere login is not sufficient, as evidence of an academically-related activity (e.g., exam taken, paper submitted, participation in a discussion) is required. For details, see the Federal Student Aid Handbook, Volume 5 on withdrawals, p. 52.
The 14 day drop requirement poses new challenges. When we posted this question to WCET members, some said that they have adult students (some in the military) who necessarily stop out for a few weeks, yet they successfully complete the course.
The Department says taking attendance will “Increase accuracy and simplicity of performing R2T4 calculations.” If the Department seeks to simplify, then forcing additional work on every faculty member is not simplifying. Currently, institutions track the last academically-related activity for the few students who drop without notice. The Department’s proposal would require additional attendance records for every student. Adding to the complexity is the need for new procedures for collecting attendance for asynchronous programs. How would that be done? Again, far from simple.
We object to this proposal.
Proposal B: Modules (Course Shorter than a Full Term)
Modules are courses shorter than a full semester or quarter. Problems arise in calculating the amount of aid to return when a student withdraws when enrolled in a module. Financial aid rules typically assume the student is enrolled in a course that spans the entire term.
What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?
The Department says that as “part of the 2019 negotiated rulemaking, the Department adopted a withdrawal exemption for programs offered in modules…Unfortunately, the module exemption has added complexity and confusion…It has also required significant guidance to explain how to determine whether a student qualifies for the exemption.”
What Is Proposed by the Department?
The Department says that to “simplify the calculations, the Department proposes to eliminate the withdrawal exemption…Under the proposed regulations those students would now be considered withdrawn unless they meet another withdrawal exemption, resulting in more money being returned to the Department and students not exhausting their aid eligibility as quickly.”
Our Analysis
It appears that the Department tried one approach and it proved to be more complicated than beneficial for aid officers and students. The change appears to be beneficial to both. If your institution makes extensive use of modules, it may be worth reviewing the proposed change with your financial aid officer.
Issue # 3- Accreditation and Red-line Document
Proposal A – Public representation on agency decision-making bodies
Similar to the governance proposal for a state authorization reciprocity agreement, the Department wishes to exclude certain entities from participation as a public member to an “agency decision-making body” for accrediting agencies.
The Department believes that these exclusions will reduce potential conflicts of interest and ensure that the public members are independent of the entities that the agency has accredited.
What is Proposed by the Department?
Like for the governance of a board for a reciprocity agreement, the Department is very specific as to who should be considered as a representative of the public. Former employees are added to the currently effective regulations barring institution and trade association current employees.
Our Analysis
The structure offered by the Department in the proposed language regarding representatives of the public is overly prescriptive. Like the previous discussion about the board for a reciprocity agreement, the language indicates “former employee” without a time frame or context. We are concerned about the ability to find appropriate representatives under this highly prescriptive structure.
Proposal B Substantive Changes and other reporting requirements
What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?
In order to ensure consistency and quality, the Department maintains that there is a need to revise substantive change requirements that focus on changes of greatest risk that may impact an institution’s resources and capacity in order to protect students.
What is Proposed by the Department?
This is a lengthy regulation with many subsections. Here are the three items that we believe SAN and WCET members will want to be aware of, and includes the following in regard to a substantive change:
Requiring agencies to visit and approve all “additional locations” of an institution.
Institutions would be required to seek a substantive change approval for their first distance education as well as at the 50 percent threshold. Additionally, an institution would need approval for additional programs at any level by an institution that has not previously offered programs at that level.
Elimination of exceptions for the agencies to delegate certain substantive change approval decisions to agency staff.
Our Analysis
Regarding the expansion of agency visits, we do believe that the Department must clarify the intention to include all locations defined in federal regulation as “additional locations.”
Note that there is also new proposed language addressed in Issue #3, Distance Education to include “virtual location” among the list of “additional locations.” If the Department truly means to include all “additional locations,” this could be a significant burden to accreditation agencies. If the “virtual location” provision is added, we are not sure what a visit to such a location would entail.
We concur with the new regulations to approve distance education on an institution’s first offering and at the threshold where 50% of the program is offered at a distance. This is a great improvement over the current standard of reviewing every program that is offered “in whole or in part” at a distance.” It appears that with the continued development of more offerings by distance education, the current standard through guidance is unnecessarily broad and could include nearly every program at an institution. We welcome the proposal.
The Department appears to seek the determinations of the agency decision-making body in all matters of substantive change rather than to delegate certain decisions to agency staff, as is the current practice. We do not see a rationale by the Department specific to this concern. The current regulation was developed through rulemaking that came to a consensus. One wonders why we need to revise a regulation that came from consensus and became effective July 1, 2020. One could consider that the currently effective regulation that allows agency staff to approve some requests is prudent as it provides for the accreditation agency to act more swiftly to address certain substantive changes.
Proposal C: Recognition of State Agencies for the Approval of Nursing Programs
What is the Problem that the Department Has Identified?
The Department wishes to codify existing practices and recognition of procedures of state agencies that provide the approval of nurse education. Currently, these agencies are subject to the Department.
What is Proposed by the Department?
The Department wishes to provide into Federal regulations, at proposed Part 604, the framework for oversight and accountability for the Secretary’s recognition of State agencies for the approval of nurse education.
The basis of the rules are found in outdated statute found here:1969 Federal Register Notice (pgs. 58-59) here: FR-1969-01-16.pdf (govinfo.gov)1.
Our Analysis
This is an extensive new section to the CFR to oversee these state agencies. It is reported that only five states would be subject to these regulations as they have chosen to be subject to the approval of the Department. The alternate negotiator for this rulemaking indicated that in the next year only three states would be subject to the approval of the Department. This is an extensive new section to the CFR to oversee these state boards of nursing. There is more to learn about the intent and applicability of these proposed regulations to state boards of nursing.
Conclusion
We know this is a lot to take in, especially on top of determining processes to implement new final regulations released last October that will become effective July 1, 2024.
However, it is important for you to know the potential impact of rules that could come from this new rulemaking, as these may affect your institutions and students.
Please stay tuned to WCET Frontiers for additional information and guidance, but you can also follow and participate in the process directly.
Register to stream the committee meetings in February and March. (cvent registration link will be provided on the Department’s website shortly before the February 5-8 meeting week).
Provide public testimony – 3 minute statement opportunities are offered during the last 30 minutes of each committee meeting. The timeslots fill quickly. Email negreghearing@ed.gov with your name and name of organization to reserve a spot.
Communicate with your senior leadership and government relations offices at your institution.
On accreditation topics, consider reaching out to your accreditor to seek information on the potential impact.
Communicate with your state legislators and/or Congressional Representatives or Senators depending on the issue area.
Share your concerns for your students and institutional processes with Cheryl Dowd (cdowd@wiche.edu) and/or Russ Poulin (rpoulin@wiche.edu). We will compile your comments to address. Please use the word Rulemaking at the beginning of your email subject line to help us identify your input.
We fully support the need for safeguards for students and for protecting the integrity of Title IV HEA programs. We hope that this rulemaking process will provide balanced, rational, and long-lasting regulations that consider the impact on all constituencies and provide clear regulations that are narrowly tailored to address specifically identified concerns.
Look for more from SAN & WCET as the rulemaking progresses!
In Hanna-Barbera’s 1962-63 space age cartoon, The Jetsons, Jetson’s son Elroy is enrolled in Little Dipper School with a robotic teacher, Miss Brainmocker. In this depiction, there is not a human teacher in sight, just robotic Miss Brainmocker.
It’s safe to say, that in the future there is either no Department of Education or a Department that has made its peace with the role of technology-assisted instruction, or at least the role of artificial intelligence. As more and more faculty are experimenting with AI in their classes, institutions need to be increasingly careful that they are in compliance with federal regulations governing regular and substantive interaction (RSI) and Title IV financial aid eligibility.
In a nutshell, however, RSI is one of the key sets of requirements that institutions are required to meet if their students are going to be eligible to receive Title IV federal financial aid. Found in 34 CFR 600.2, regular and substantive interaction is a key component in the federal definition of distance education. This definition of distance education is quoted below:
Distance education: Education that uses one or more of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1)(i) through (1)(iv) of this definition to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor or instructors, and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor or instructors, either synchronously or asynchronously.
The technologies that may be used to offer distance education include —
The internet;
One-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable,microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;
Audio conferencing; or
Other media used in a course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed inparagraphs (1)(i) through (1)(iii) of this definition.
For purposes of this definition, an instructor is an individual responsible for delivering course content and who meets the qualifications for instruction established by the institution’s accrediting agency.
For purposes of this definition, 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.
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—
Providing the opportunity for substantive interactions with the student on a predictable and regular basis commensurate with the length of time and the amount ofcontent in the course or competency; and
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.
Why is it important for institutions to adhere to this definition of distance education and include both regular and substantive interaction? Failure to do so comes with dire consequences like:
large fines from the Department of Education,
being required to refund federal financial aid dollars to the government, and,
(in egregious cases) the loss of Title IV financial aid eligibility.
What Does This Mean for Artificial Intelligence?
Keen observers will note that the first part of the definition of distance education references interactions between instructor(s) and students: “support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor or instructors, either synchronously or asynchronously.”
Photo by Antoni Shkraba: https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-talking-to-a-person-on-laptop-6266980/
For our purposes, the modality (either synchronous or asynchronous) of the learning is inconsequential; what matters is who is primarily involved in the delivery of instruction. In the Supplementary Information accompanying the final regulations released by the Department of Education in 2020, the Department takes pains to address the role of artificial intelligence and other technology-mediated instruction. At the time, the Department wrote,
“Only individuals responsible for delivering course content and who meet the qualifications for instruction established by an institution’s accrediting agency can fulfill the requirements for regular and substantive interaction with students. The Department does not prohibit other forms of substantive interaction that do not involve qualified instructors, but under the statutory definition such interaction cannot meet the requirements in the definition of ‘distance education.’”
The Department went on to write (emphasis added),
“Interaction with artificial intelligence, adaptive learning systems, or other forms of interactive computer-assisted instructional tools quality as types of ‘academic engagement,’ but in this limited context those forms of engagement do not meet the statutory requirements for regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors… [T]he definition currently requires regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors; substantive interactions with machines or other forms of technology that do not involve in [an] instructor would, therefore, not qualify.”
Thus, as one can see, the Department is clear that it is not allowable for artificial intelligence to be used to supplant rather than augment an instructor for courses eligible for federal financial aid.
What should you do if you are worried about the use of AI in your courses?
First and foremost, you need to make sure that your institution has a clear RSI policy and that all distance education faculty receive training on that policy. Document that this training has been completed.
Second, you should review your existing RSI policy to make sure that you directly address the role of AI in your courses and take steps to ensure instructors understand how they can and can’t leverage AI in meeting the Department of Education’s definition of distance education and regular and substantive interaction. Institutions may need to be explicit that artificial intelligence cannot substitute for instructor interactions with students.
In the release of those 2020 regulations, the Department was careful to not ban the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom and even suggested that such technologies might improve student-instructor interactions. But the Department has also been careful to clearly state that AI and related technologies can in no way substitute for the instructor.
One can’t help but wonder how a Jetson’s era Department of Education would interpret Little Dipper School’s reliance on Miss Brainmocker and whether or not Elroy and his classmates are receiving a quality education. Is anyone writing a Jetson’s spinoff show yet? Perhaps they will cover that story there.
In the realm of excellence, there are those who go above and beyond to achieve greatness. Their dedication, passion, and outstanding contributions set them apart, and it is important to honor those contributions with prestigious awards. Today, the State Authorization Network (SAN), a division of WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies, not only celebrates our peers and their successes, but we unveil the secrets that have led them to their award-winning achievements. Join us as we announce the five remarkable compliance processes that have earned our esteemed accolades.
Even as compliance processes, policies, and procedures designed to comply with state and federal laws are unique to and contingent upon an institution’s specific activities, much can be gleaned through shared knowledge between peers and professionals in the field. Thus, it is in that very spirit of sharing and collaborating that SAN’s annual SANsational Award was borne.
About the SANsational Awards
Since 2015, SAN, a division of the WCET has recognized that innovation and creativity drive progress in the world of distance education compliance.
In that spirit, the SAN team annually honors these contributions by celebrating these outstanding distance education compliance practices. SAN realized early on that not only are these practices vital for meeting the contemporary needs of distance education regulations and requirements, but also essential for inspiring future breakthroughs.
SAN presents its annual SANsational awards to colleagues and their respective institutions that demonstrate diligence when creating innovative and sustainable processes designed to manage state and federal regulatory compliance for out-of-state activities.
This year, nominations were accepted in the following categories:
LicensurePrograms: Notifications and disclosures for professional licensure program status in each state.
Location: How the institution identifies where their students are located while taking online courses, doing internships/practicums etc., and to meet Federal regulations (34 CFR 600.9(c)(iii) & 34 CFR 668.43(c))? How does the institution report this information?
Compliance Innovations: Institution policy, tools, compliance teams, or other inventive or novel compliance management practices.
The SANsational Award Process
SAN offers members the opportunity to submit a self-nomination form that describes the solution they intend to address. The submissions are reviewed by an Awards Committee made up of respected compliance professionals. The committee evaluates the submissions in four areas:
That the solution meets the requirements and the needs of state and/or federal regulations, SARA policy, the institution, and students.
That the submission demonstrates a clear, comprehensive, and practical solution to meet compliance requirements.
The project exhibits the capability to be adapted or replicated as a model for others.
The project addresses the specific focus of the category chosen. Candidates should carefully choose the category for which they submit their self-nomination.
We would ’d like to extend our sincere gratitude to this year’s Awards Committee, each of whom carefully reviewed and considered all submissions and for providing guidance and leadership when selecting our 2023 award recipients:
Jeannie Yockey-Fine, General Counsel, NC-SARA who carefully reviewed and considered each award nomination.
And the winners are…
This year, SAN presented awards for five stellar project submissions. The recipients for 2023 are:
The Chicago School (Licensure Programs and Location),
Post University (Licensure Programs),
Sinclair Community College (Location), and,
The University of Louisville (Compliance Innovations).
Noted below are additional details about each institution and their respective projects.
Winner: The Chicago School, Los Angeles, California
Category: Licensure Programs
Project Title: The Licensure Story: When Obstacles & Challenges Lead to Wins
SAN is proud to announce that The Chicago School, a leader in providing programs and concentrations that focus on fostering a global understanding of growing fields, is a 2023 winner of the SANsational Award for the category of Licensure Programs.
(The Chicago School’s team-left to right) Miguel Valenzuela, Director, Accreditation Licensure, & State Authorization; Melea Fields, Associate Vice President/ALO, Accreditation, Licensure & State Authorizations; Rebecca Zacarias, Licensure and Administrative Support, Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorizations
The Chicago School is a non-profit private institution with a national presence, offering over thirty graduate and undergraduate programs in professional fields such as psychology, business, health services, education, counseling, and more. These programs are offered in online/distance modality as well as on-ground.
To ensure compliance with the licensure disclosure requirements set forth by the Federal Government, The Chicago School’s Office of Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorization (ALSA) team developed a process that determines and tracks where its programs’ offerings lead to professional licensure eligibility.
To bolster their compliance efforts, in 2019, The Chicago School’s ALSA team established an annual licensure audit. This process provides a detailed review of each state’s licensing laws and regulations as published on the state’s licensing board websites. The ALSA thoroughly reviews the laws and regulations to identify each state’s educational standards for licensure and whether the program requires individual approval from a state professional licensing board. Each of the state’s professional licensure requirements is placed into a database. Through this process, information related to existing licensure regulations and any changes is tracked and archived.
Once the research process is completed, the database is sent to the Program Chair to solicit appropriate feedback. As the program’s expert, the Program Chair works collaboratively with ALSA by reviewing the information provided and determining whether the program’s curriculum meets or does not meet licensure requirements, or whether a determination has not been made.
Upon completion of the review process, the ALSA works with the Legal Affairs office to approve all licensure disclosure changes to ensure federal/state compliance. This collaborative process has proven to be monumental in accurately tracking state licensure eligibility for The Chicago School’s programs.
SAN extends a hearty congratulations to this team!
Winner: Post University (Waterbury, Connecticut)
Category: Licensure Programs
Project Title: Personalized Licensure Advising and Disclosure
Members of the Post University team from left to right Alex Larsson, Accreditation Specialist; Melissa Pilloise, Accreditation Specialist; Christine Adamczyk, Accreditation Specialist; Michelle Hubbell, Director of Military and Graduate Admissions; Shawn Fields, Associate Director of Accreditation; Jana Walser-Smith (State Authorization Network); Sandra Wilson, Co-Provost; Jeremi Bauer, Co-Provost.
Innovation, creativity, and commitment continue to drive progress in the field of distance education compliance. As such, the associates at Post University embody this very ideal.
SAN is proud to award Post University the SANsational Award for its groundbreaking approach to advising and providing necessary disclosures to its students.
The associates at Post University believe that personalized guidance, unwavering motivation, robust support, and student-centered education are the catalysts that allow students to achieve their individual academic and career goals. Post University programs shape workforce-ready, socially responsible leaders through learning experiences offered in and out of the classroom. These experiences are designed to promote the exchange of knowledge, expand thinking, and refine practical and professional skills. Founded in 1890 and serving students online or in person from a 58-acre campus in Waterbury, Connecticut, last year’s unique student headcount included over 31,000 students.
Knowing that a simple posting of whether an enrollment could fulfill the educational requirements for licensure in each state required by federal regulations did not fully express Post’s tenet of Post Makes it Personal®, the Accreditation Department developed a program to advise students at each stage of the licensure process.
At Post, students are provided with personalized credentialing advising before, during, and after their enrollments by a small team of credentialing specialists. Starting with the graduate counseling enrollments in 2020, and extending to the accounting, nurse practitioner, and teaching English language learner enrollments in 2021, over 4,500 potential students and thousands more active students have been reached regarding licensure.
As a result of these efforts, students have expressed a great reduction in stress and anxiety, knowing that they have a plan to reach their professional goals before they even begin class and a partner in navigating the complicated path to licensure.
SAN salutes Post University for providing a model that provides personalized service and a commitment to student success!
The Chicago School – Los Angeles, California
Category: Location
Winning Project: Embracing Purposeful Engagement for a California Institution
The SAN team presented a second award to the team at The Chicago School for their work in the Location category. Their initiative, Embracing Purposeful Engagement for a California Institution, provides a comprehensive approach to understanding, tracking, and documenting student location.
In response to the need to track student locations for non-State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) participating institutions, The Chicago School’s Office of Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorization (ALSA), has developed and implemented processes to facilitate compliance with all state authorization activities. In conjunction with state authorization compliance, The Chicago School worked to create a solid and comprehensive process to determine, track, and monitor students declared state of residency and states of licensure to ensure students are well informed.
(The Chicago School’s team-left to right) Miguel Valenzuela, Director, Accreditation Licensure, & State Authorization; Melea Fields, Associate Vice President/ALO, Accreditation, Licensure & State Authorizations; Rebecca Zacarias, Licensure and Administrative Support, Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorizations
The process and procedures of The Chicago School’s locations disclosure process follows an internal tracking, audit, and annual gap analysis of all authorized programs and states. Specifically, immediately upon beginning the admission process, students are asked to disclose not only their state of residence but any state they intend to be licensed in after completion of the program.
Students are then immediately notified (via an automated pop-up linked to the ALSA team’s audits) if their program does not meet licensure requirements for the state they chose. If a student continues the enrollment process, they are then counseled by a program expert and asked to acknowledge the information provided on licensure for their state(s).
Additionally, this team has built an automated notice into the student portal if they make an address change. This immediately informs the student if the new state fails to meet any licensure requirements. Should students identify a state the program is not eligible, they are routed to a counselor to further obtain acknowledgment. This process also satisfies the individualized notification federal mandate (34 CFR 668.43(c)) that requires institutions to notify students within 14 calendar days if a determination is made that the institution’s curriculum does not meet state educational requirements where the student is located.
This project has made significant strides in ensuring that The Chicago School’s students are kept abreast of any changes in state licensure requirements thus facilitating matriculation and completion. Well done Chicago School!
Sinclair Community College – Dayton, Ohio
Category: Location
Winning Project: Professional License Disclosures
The team at Sinclair Community College earned recognition for its exceptional contribution to the field with its student location tracking project.
Founded in 1887, Sinclair is the nation’s oldest continually operating community college. The institution features more than 30,000 students at its main campus, four regional centers, as well as online. Since 1979, Sinclair has offered robust, student-centered distance education and eLearning-infused opportunities for all learners based on Quality Matters design principles.
The Sinclair team pictured from left to right) Cheryl Dowd, (State Authorization Network); Chris Prokes, Program Director, eLearning Strategy and Innovation; Brittany Barrett, Compliance Coordinator; Amanda Owen, Manager of Distance Education, and eLearning Compliance.
For 136 years, Sinclair has heeded the credo of founder David Sinclair to “Find the need and endeavor to meet it”. Accordingly, the Sinclair team continually strives to maintain focus on quality and innovation, sustainability, accessibility, and community alignment to provide the Miami Valley region with the highest standard in educational opportunities. As a result, Sinclair consistently ranks among the top community colleges in America and a top choice for students.
The impetus for this project is rooted in Sinclair’s identification of the need to formulate a response to the out-of-state disclosure requirement (34 CFR §668.43 (c)). The regulation requires institutions to provide direct disclosure notifications to students in programs that lead to professional licensure or certification.
Sinclair’s first step was to collect a list of all programs that lead to professional licensure and create a database that identified if the program satisfies education requirements by state. Then, by cross-referencing student records to determine student location, the database automatically triggers an email with personalized direct disclosure information to students, keeping the college’s actions in compliance with regulations.
Collaboration was key to this project’s success, as multiple offices across campus participated in the creation and delivery of the Professional License Disclosures Database. Leadership from the Provost’s Office, the eLearning Compliance Department and the Research, Analytics, and Reporting Office (RAR) were critical in the development and success of the project. Through such collaboration, a resilient system was created to maintain compliance, deliver necessary information to students, and keep detailed records for internal and external reporting.
It is the hope of the Sinclair team that their Professional License Disclosures Database may serve as a blueprint for other institutions to create an efficient system to fulfill the obligations for compliance with out-of-state disclosure requirements. Congratulations to the entire team at Sinclair!
University of Louisville – Louisville, Kentucky
Category: Compliance Innovations
Winning Project: Elevating the Importance of Academic Compliance: A Paired Approach to Change
Located in Kentucky’s largest metropolitan area, UofL is a public research university with 12 academic schools and colleges and serves as home to more than 23,000 students.
(The UofL team pictured from left to right) Kelvin Thompson, Vice Provost for Online Strategy & Teaching Innovation; Kathryn Kerensky (State Authorization Network); Jennifer Hurwitz, Distance Education Compliance Manager; Kristen Brown, Associate Director Online Learning.
The UofL is proud to be recognized among the nation’s best institutions for African American, LatinX and LGBT+ students. The institution has also been designated as a Military Friendly school, and is a producer of top scholars, including more Fulbright Scholars since 2003 than all other Kentucky public institutions combined.
The UofL is committed to ensuring access to higher education for all, including increasing the availability of financial aid for low-income and first-generation college students and providing additional support and resources for underrepresented populations.
This project emerged from the fact that institutional size and organizational structure can often impact viable solutions to state authorization and related academic compliance challenges. This is especially true at large, decentralized universities where campus units grapple with a multitude of conflicting priorities; thus, securing buy-in can be a painfully slow process.
Furthermore, certain job titles, such as ‘distance education compliance manager,’ might inadvertently lead colleagues to assume that specific compliance concerns do not pertain to them. This, in turn, may cause key stakeholders to question the prioritization of academic compliance, especially when they fail to observe any immediate signs of Title IV eligibility being in jeopardy or that potential fines and sanctions could be levied against the institution.
In a context like this, developing a strategic approach for elevating the importance of academic compliance can be critical for achieving desired outcomes. By identifying where the key stakeholders already were and leveraging two existing university leadership meetings to build trust and to maintain awareness of academic compliance issues, the distance education compliance manager carved out space for academic compliance awareness to spread.
The UofL team assures all that, “This compliance innovation is simple, easy to adapt for any institution, and time is the only expense.” Well done to all at the UofL!
Learn more about the 2023 Winners!
The SAN team offers our congratulations to each of the SANsational Award Winners! We are proud of your accomplishments and extend our gratitude for your willingness to share your ideas and processes with those of us in the field! It also goes without saying how much the SAN team enjoyed our visits to each of these campuses when presenting their SANsational award in person.
For additional details on these fascinating projects visit the SANsational Webpage. There, you will find recorded presentations from each of our winners detailing their processes, challenges, and outcomes. Please note that the recorded presentations are each approximately 20 minutes in length.
Your team too could be winners! Mark your calendars for the 2024 award selection process which will begin in the summer.
For more information about the activities, events, and resources provided by the State Authorization Network (SAN), please visit the SAN Website or contact the SAN team at san-info@wiche.edu.
ChatGPT recently turned one and what a wild, first year it has been. Over the last twelve months, institutions have scrambled to not only better understand generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on teaching and learning, but also to determine the best ways to provide guardrails and guidance for faculty, staff, and students. Many institutions have struggled to develop institutional-level policies.
In a spring survey administered by WCET, only eight percent of respondents reported that their institution had developed and/or implemented at least one AI-related policy.
WCET has developed an AI policy and practice framework to help institutions identify the policy areas that they need to address and develop policies and guidelines for those areas.
The Framework
In 2023, Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan conducted research on perceptions and implications of text generative AI technologies in order to develop an AI policy for higher education. Based on the findings, she proposed an AI Ecological Education Policy Framework to address “the multifaceted implications of AI integration in university teaching and learning.”The WCET framework adapts Chan’s framework and categorizes institutional AI policy needs in three areas:
Governance,
Operations, and,
Pedagogy.
Undergirding all three areas of our policy and practice framework is the ethical and responsible use of AI. All policy decisions at colleges and universities should be grounded in ethical considerations of AI. Doing so ensures the most effective and responsible use of, and teaching about, these technologies. And it is often institutional administrators who lead this work. Not developing and implementing AI policies within the context of ethical considerations opens up the institution – and thus its leaders – to, at best, inefficient use of resources that often include funds from taxpayers, and, at worst, serious breaches of privacy, security, transparency, and equity.
Governance
This dimension emphasizes the governance considerations surrounding AI usage in higher education. Governance refers to the senior management at an institution, including such positions and roles as Chancellor/President, Chief Academic Officer, Chief Information Office, Vice President for Student Services, VP for Institutional Research/Effectiveness, and others depending on the campus context. Governance may also encompass managers such as Deans and Chairs of academic discipline units. Members of senior leadership will be the initiators for the Governance dimension of the framework. As they hold decision-making authority, they should set the tone for effective and innovative AI use across campus and ensure that all AI policies and practices support the mission and goals of the institution and foster an equitable and inclusive environment.
Here we highlight six areas of responsibility:
Data governance.
Data governance refers to an institution’s policies and processes that ensure that effective and responsible management, including security, exists throughout the complete lifecycle of the data, and data controls are implemented that support business objectives.
Evaluation of AI use across the institution.
Campus administrators should also oversee (working in concert with such units as Institutional Research and Information Technology) the evaluation of the effectiveness of AI in every use. The information and data collected should be harnessed for continuous improvement of AI planning, policies, and practices. By regularly collecting feedback from all users, including students, colleges and universities can make informed decisions about how to improve AI implementation. Evaluating the effectiveness of AI tools in enhancing learning outcomes is also vital to determine their value and make adjustments as needed.
Promoting and monitoring faculty and staff usage of AI, including research.
Where appropriate, institutional governance should work to encourage campus personnel, including faculty, and students to utilize AI technologies. It may be important to continue to emphasize that, even in AI use, faculty remain centered as the subject matter experts and that AI technologies can support their ongoing role as SMEs. Along with this, though, comes the responsibility of monitoring that use – including while conducting research – to ensure that it is ethical, effective, and appropriate.
Inclusive, equitable access.
Ensuring equitable access to AI technologies is crucial for fostering an inclusive learning environment. Universities should work to provide the appropriate technologies and support to all students, faculty, administrators, and staff, regardless of their background or access to technology. By promoting equal access to AI technologies, universities can help level the playing field and ensure that all students and staff have the opportunity to benefit from the advantages offered by AI integration. Not doing so widens the digital divide.
Intellectual property.
Leaders at institutions will need to consider how intellectual property, including research, course materials, and student-produced work, is defined and, where needed, protected when created using AI, either fully or in part. However, these policies must be developed in accordance with U.S. and international copyright laws (which are scrambling to keep up with the new technologies) and, thus, likely should involve collaboration with the institution’s legal counsel.
AI use and promotion, tenure, & re-appointment practices.
Institutional leaders should also consider how works produced using AI are considered in promotion, tenure, and reappointment of faculty. These processes can be used to reward and incentivize innovative research and teaching, but they also should guard against plagiarism of content in portfolios and dossiers.
Operations
This dimension assists in the understanding and implementation of AI across the institution and includes staff in key areas such as Academic Affairs, Information Technology, and Centers for Teaching & Learning Effectiveness/Excellence. Here we highlight three areas of responsibility:
Professional development (training & support).
Training and support on AI technologies should be offered to all who use or may use AI, including administrators, staff, faculty, and students. Effective training and support can go a long way to mitigate and alleviate often extensive (and legitimate) concerns about integrating AI into work, instruction, and learning. Investing in training, support, and resources can help educators, their students, and others feel more confident and capable in navigating the complexities and ever-changing landscape of AI technologies.
Developing and maintaining infrastructure for AI.
The responsibility for developing and maintaining an institution’s AI infrastructure will likely fall primarily to Information Technology in consultation with other units to determine needs and evaluate costs and efficacy of tools.
Review and recommend AI implementation to improve operational practices.
All operational units should be engaged in scanning the landscape of AI to review and recommend platforms and tools that can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the institution’s operations, whether for student services and support, instruction and learning, admissions, recruitment and marketing, staff workflows, and resource planning, among others.
Pedagogy
This dimension emphasizes the practical implementation of AI to support instruction and learning in the classroom. Faculty are the initiators of this dimension, working closely with those in Operations to actualize policy and planning from the Governance level while always considering ethical dimensions. Instructors are ultimately responsible for designing and implementing curricula, activities, and assessments that utilize AI technologies. They will need to gain some expertise to determine how AI can best support and enhance students’ learning experiences while assisting learners in understanding the implications for academic integrity. Here we highlight seven areas of responsibility:
Academic integrity.
Generative AI has raised concerns that students will misuse technologies to plagiarize. The more clear and consistent policies are, the more likely students will understand and follow them, reducing the chances of misuse. Policies and guidelines may range from those that ban the use of AI in the classroom altogether, to those that allow and even encourage use. Policies regarding appropriate attribution and acknowledgment of AI technologies used to create assignments and other products of learning are crucial as well. There may be an institutional policy regarding this; if not, faculty should develop their own.
Assessment practices.
Assessing the effectiveness of learning is a hallmark of education; however, it has been historically fraught and intertwined with ensuring academic integrity. The increasing ubiquity of Generative AI has further complicated these practices, necessitating reconsideration of assessment methods to balance the benefits of AI with the need to maintain academic integrity.
Clear communication to students regarding AI expectations.
Faculty should clearly state in the syllabus how students will be expected to use AI in the class and should also verbally communicate those expectations on the first day of class. Being clear about how a faculty member will leverage AI in the course allows students to make informed decisions about whether to stay in the course.
Developing student AI competencies and skills/workforce preparation.
The increasing ubiquity of Generative AI in the workplace calls for a new digital literacy. This need makes it imperative for institutions to prepare students for this complex technological working landscape, equipping them with skills and knowledge to successfully navigate not only the current landscape, but a rapidly evolving one as well. Therefore, not only should faculty teach at least basic skills students need to integrate AI into their work, but also evaluate when it is appropriate to use AI, how to evaluate the tools, and to understand their role in professional settings.
Understanding algorithmic bias.
Instructors should make students aware of the possibility of discrimination being programmed into AI, since fallible humans must be a part of the process to develop inputs used (with the recognition that humans may themselves perpetuate discriminatory practices through the data).
Regular & Substantive Interaction.
The use of AI to augment or even replace certain instructional and related support practices, such as information delivery, responding to questions, assessment, tutoring, and personalized learning and guidance, could have a significant impact on norms and expectations around interactions between students and instructors. Institutions should ensure that they address the extent to which faculty are allowed to automate instruction through the use of artificial intelligence and the aspects of instruction that can leverage artificial intelligence. For most institutions, this will mean revising existing policies on regular and substantive interaction.
Learner accessibility.
It is important to consider the ways in which some generative AI tools might not be accessible for all students with disabilities and learning challenges in general, while others may support accessibility, including for users of assistive technology. All learners using assistive technology must be able to meaningfully engage and independently interact with AI interfaces and outputs.
Putting aside fears of AI surpassing human intelligence and achieving singularity – a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible – legitimate concerns remain a year after the appearance of ChatGPT, including in education.
Issues surrounding academic integrity, the quality of knowledge produced by AI tools, the replacement of instructors by AI, mitigating a new “digital divide,” and how to prepare students for an AI-infused workforce, among others, are real.
Institutions continue to grapple with security and privacy, equity and access, and other challenges that these technologies present.
Upcoming WCET Resource Addressing AI in Higher Ed
In his Substack AI + Education = Simplified, Lance Eaton suggests that the all-too-common reinvention of wheels in higher education – “the thing that contributes to institutions being so slow” – is stymieing effective use of AI in the sector. WCET is committed to addressing this challenge by bringing institutions together to share knowledge and providing resources to support the community. One of the resources that we are most excited about is the development of our AI Policy and Practice Toolkit which we will release later this month. This WCET members-only resource builds out our AI Policy and Practice Framework and includes sample policies and/or guidelines for each of the outlined areas.
If your institution is not a WCET member, you can join now. WCET is offering a discounted membership rate through the end of the year of 35% off new memberships in celebration of our 35thanniversary. You can find more information about it here. And if you are wondering if your institution is a member of WCET, you can access a list of members here.
I asked some of the WCET leadership and friends to share takeaways and topics that threaded through the entire event (especially those that will impact higher education and digital learning next year).
I appreciate everyone who shared their thoughts for this post! We also included some anonymous comments from the after event survey, thank you for the kind and supportive feedback on this year’s Annual Meeting.
Here are some takeaways I had from the comments I received:
Artificial Intelligence isn’t going anywhere and it will remain an important topic (in higher ed and life in general) for 2024 (and beyond).
Enrollment in higher ed has changed, and we will continue to see shifts in who enrolls in a college or university and how they want to enroll. 2024 seems like a good year to focus on how higher ed can adapt to these changes.
Practitioners need additional guidance, resources, and training surrounding newly released requirements for interstate distance education (and those looking for it were happy to learn from our experts at our sessions!).
This year’s sessions were excellent, New Orleans was a fun backdrop for the event, and, above all, it was a pleasure to interact in-person again with the exceptional members of our community.
I continue to learn from our institutional members about the post-COVID impact on the shifts to digital learning. Rather than “going back to normal,” faculty are teaching more online and hybrid courses and more students are enrolling in them.
This enrollment shift has surprised many and there are many practical implications including: more need for faculty development and instructional design, clearer communication on what the student experience will be in a course is needed, resources (technology, software, support staff) are stretched, online student services need to expand, and policies (institutional distance ed fees and federal regulations) are stretched or violated. I heard about one institution where they are re-configuring their online unit. At another, their campus Wi-Fi is overtaxed, even though there are fewer faculty and students on campus. And what do we do with those empty classrooms? Addressing these many issues will occupy many institutional leaders in 2024.
Van Davis, WCET
As always, I came away from WCET’s Annual Meeting with lots to think about.
Going into the meeting, AI (especially generative AI), was top of mind for me. I left the Annual Meeting impressed with the depth of thinking that digital learning leaders are doing around AI and was particularly struck by the observation that while we as faculty and staff are working with the most sophisticated technology we have ever experienced, our students are working with the least sophisticated technology they will experience in their lifetimes.
Judith Sebesta, Sebesta Education Consulting LLC and part of the Annual Meeting opening panel
Photo of opening session at Annual Meeting 2023
Two highlights for me of the recent WCET Annual Meeting were the pre-conference workshop on Artificial Intelligence as well as the Awards Lunch.
At the workshop, I was so impressed with the inquisitive and knowledgeable minds gathered together in the room to explore effective AI practices and policies.
It gave me hope that we can successfully harness AI to benefit our campuses and students!
And learning about the work of this year’s recipients of the WCET Individual, WOW, and SANsational Awards was so inspiring, pushing me to strive for excellence in the work that I do to support innovation and online learning in higher education.
Cheryl Dowd, WCET
The WCET Annual Meeting and the SAN Coordinator Meeting are valuable opportunities to learn and share important goals and challenges when serving students using digital technologies, especially through interstate distance education.
In addition to many notable discussions about AI, this year, I was very focused on learning from others about their concerns about implementing nuanced requirements released by the U.S. Department of Education.
My biggest takeaway is that institutions desire more clarity and training to understand complicated requirements. The institutions’ staff members expressed that they need a road map to share this information and to implement these requirements collaboratively among various stakeholders at institutions. Additionally, the institution’s staff members expressed that they wish direction to gain the support of senior leaders when a change or modification of the institution’s processes becomes necessary. Because interstate distance education opportunities will continue to grow, the institutions will need to develop mechanisms to anticipate and support the needs of their interstate students and comply with additional state and federal requirements.
Feedback from Attendees
We had a lovely time last week presenting at and being a part of @wcet_info's 35th Annual Meeting! It was wonderful getting to meet so many passionate educational leaders across the country. #WCET2023 Thank you to those who attended our workshops and stopped by our booth! pic.twitter.com/Cc17dVKzvP
It was great that presenters could quickly pivot with the latest US ED regulations coming out and address the potential considerations and impact.
(The best part of the conference) EVERYTHING! It is a great community to be a part of and it was so nice to put people with faces and names. I really appreciated the policy sessions with experts like Cheryl, Russ and Aaron who were able to digest and explain the new regulations very quickly!
Special shout out to the Student Panel facilitated by Every Learner Everywhere. It was great hearing directly from students what works and what doesn’t work for them. Definitely, we need more sessions like this in academic conferences.
For me, one of the highlights of the Annual Meeting was getting all of these great leaders and practitioners from across the US in the same space. It was definitely rewarding to exchange ideas with people with different roles and from different types of institution.
The highlight for me was the insightful sessions on AI. It was honestly nice to know that no one has the “answer” for incorporating AI into the learning experience, but the journey to discovery was fun and helpful.
I expected to make some connections as we do at any conference, but something was special about this one. I’ve never attended a “women in tech” conference before. The connections I’ve made here are priceless. – ASWE attendee.
Thank you again for the feedback on our event. Our team members do review the results from the survey and read every comment. It’s important to us to understand what went well and what we can do better each year.
I thought I’d end today’s post with reflections from Megan and Kim, the WCET team members who spent so much time making this event as extraordinary as it was. Cheers to you both!
Megan Raymond, WCET
The 2023 Annual Meeting stood out to me as one of the best WCET conferences I’ve participated in in 17 years. There are many aspects of the event that stand out to me. Being in New Orleans in the historic arts and warehouse district, the location meant numerous restaurants, shops, and walking paths were nearby. The event size of 350 attendees cultivated a collegial atmosphere; it was easy to find friends and make new ones. Lastly, I loved the addition of the Annual Summit of Women in eLearning to the Annual Meeting. This was a wonderful way to connect with women through sharing, mentoring, collaboration, and dancing at the Pajamarama. Throughout the entire Annual Meeting, there was a sense that people were really happy to connect post-pandemic and missed being in person.
Kim Nawrocki, WCET
I want to extend a heartfelt thanks to our speakers and staff who made this a spectacular Annual Meeting. Attendees seemed especially inspired to share challenges and aspirations to evolve higher ed together, gaining insights to bring back to their campuses. It was wonderful to engage with our community in person—and it’s hard to beat the lively environment, historic neighborhoods, and amazing food one finds in New Orleans.
About last night! We had a wonderful welcome reception with all our #WCET2023 attendees. Our signature cocktail, the MIXed Bliss was ?. The name was “shaken up” by #chatgpt. pic.twitter.com/pw0NUeVxaJ
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
![quote textbox: “In the digital context, this [“rhetoric of care”] translates to faculty members going the extra mile to connect with students on a personal level...
These spaces have a culture of kindness woven into the fabric of every interaction...
This intentional approach to teaching creates a ripple effect, as students, in turn, engage with course materials and their peers with a spirit of empathy and collaboration.”](/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2024/02/Your-paragraph-text.png)
