Author: Lindsey Downs

Categories
Policy

ED’s New Proposed Regulations, Part II: Changes for Programs Leading to Professional Licensure

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date May 25, 2023
Comment button graphic with a finger pointing to the button

As we revealed in our recent post, ED’s New Proposed Regulations: Part 1, State Authorization Reciprocity, the Department of Education’s new package of proposed regulations includes issues that could have a big impact on institutions that offer programs in other states and upon the students they serve. While most press articles about the proposed rules focus on Gainful Employment, you will need to be aware of other nuanced issues also addressed in these proposed regulations that may have gone unnoticed during your first review. We are providing direction for you on very complicated sub-issues related to reciprocity and programs leading to a license or certification that are found in the Negotiated Rulemaking Issue, Certification Procedures. These important sub-issues aren’t the “sexy” regulatory issues getting most of the press coverage and could easily be overlooked.

It is important to reiterate that we support the consumer protection goals of the Department. We concur that it is very important to provide safeguards for students and protect the integrity of Title IV HEA programs. However, we do believe that in some circumstances there may be other ways to address the development of safeguards. This is especially true when there is a need to collaborate with state entities, such as state licensing boards, as partners to develop protections addressing programs leading to a state professional license or certification.

What you need to know today about new proposed Federal regulations: • New proposed regulations go beyond Gainful Employment. • Proposed rules include increased institution responsibilities beyond notifications to offer programs leading to a license to students located in another state. • Public comment on proposed regulations deadline is June 20, 2023. Your voice matters!

We encourage institution personnel to thoroughly review and discuss these additional proposed regulations to determine the impact on students at their institution. The Department invites the public to submit comments on the proposed regulations by the comment deadline of June 20, 2023. Additionally, the Department is seeking responses to directed questions posed throughout the preamble of the announcement for the proposed regulations. We will provide further information in this post on the process to submit comments. We encourage you to participate!

In Part I of our proposed regulations review, we offered the background on the rulemaking process and shared insight into the proposed regulations addressing reciprocity. Additionally, we offered background on the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) and the potential impact for institutions participating in SARA for purposes of state institutional approval for interstate distance education related activities.

Today, in Part II of our proposed regulations review, we will offer analysis of the proposed regulations addressing programs leading to a professional license or certification. This analysis will include background of the status of current regulations to then understand the new additional responsibilities including changes to the notifications. As with our previous post, to more easily read and direct you to specific regulatory language, we point you to specific pages of the unofficial version of the proposed regulations.

We know that these two posts are very dense. We hope that by indicating sections with sub-headings that you may review the information in bites. You may also wish to share these posts with colleagues to keep them informed about these issues that are not receiving much notice in the press, but may affect the institution’s work. Additionally, we hope that the information might help prepare you to develop your public comments.

Background on Federal Regulations for Programs Leading to a Professional License

State oversight varies widely by profession and state, but states have developed and maintain their own laws and regulations to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the licensed professions and occupations. Institutions are expected to follow all state requirements, as applicable, in the states where the student is located.

During the 2014 Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking, the issue of Federal regulations for consumer protection for students enrolled in programs leading to a license was first addressed. The rulemaking committee did not reach consensus. Consensus means no opposition by the rulemaking committee members. Because the rulemaking committee did not reach consensus, the Department wrote the rules and released final regulations in December 2016. Among the regulations were required notifications for professional licensure programs completed solely through distance education, excluding internships and clinicals.

The effective date of these regulations was eventually delayed, then subject to a lawsuit, then became effective for thirteen months, and then replaced in July 2020 with the current regulations for notifications. Even with such drama, an important thing to note is that these 2016 regulations required public and individualized disclosures. Additionally, an important aspect that we greatly supported was that the institution was to obtain a written acknowledgement from a prospective student if the student received an individualized disclosure that the institution did not meet or had not made a determination whether the curriculum meets the prerequisites in the state of the student’s residence.

Please note that it was the Department that used the term “residence” rather than “location.” The terminology issue was corrected in the 2019 rulemaking.

The current Federal regulations, which came from consensus during the 2019 Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking, expanded the notification requirement beyond “solely through distance education” to include all modalities, including in-person. The public notifications were also expanded to address all states and territories regardless of whether the institution was serving students in any additional states and territories.

For each state and territory, the institution is currently expected to provide public notifications to indicate whether the institution curriculum “meets,” “does not meet,” or “has made no determination” related to the state educational requirements to obtain a license. Additionally, the institution must provide individualized notifications to prospective and enrolled students under the prescribed circumstances. The regulations to provide these notifications became effective July 1, 2020. However, the written acknowledgement was not maintained.

What is now proposed?

Proposed Rules when providing programs leading to a professional license: • Must determine that the institution’s program satisfies educational requirements for a license where the student is located at time of initial enrollment. • Revised public notifications – list of all states the institution is aware the program meets or does not meet requirements. • No change to direct notifications.

The Certification Procedures issue is one of the five issues addressed in the newly proposed rule package. The items included in this issue are intended to address the process and criteria to go into a Program Participation Agreement (PPA), which an institutional leader signs to assure the Department that it will comply with the provisions of that Agreement to remain eligible to disburse Federal financial aid.

The Certification Procedures issue did not reach consensus during the Winter 2022 negotiated rulemaking. With no consensus, the Department wrote the proposed regulations for this issue and several others. As we mentioned in our previous post, these are proposed regulations which must be released as final regulations by November 1, 2023, in order for the regulations to become effective no earlier than July 1, 2024.

Institution responsibilities for programs leading to license, as proposed, include the following:

  1. NEW! The institution “must determine” that the institution’s program “satisfies” educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification where the student is located at the time of initial enrollment (p. 957-958) 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32).
  2. REVISED! Public Notifications must include a list of all states where the institution is aware that the program does and does not meet such requirements (p. 981) 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v).

You may be wondering if there are any proposed changes to the individualized notifications since the public notifications are proposed to indicate only “meet” or “does not meet” educational requirements. The individualized notifications were not addressed during the negotiated rulemaking process and there are no proposed amendments to the regulation offered. Therefore, the individualized notifications will remain the same as found in 34 CFR 668.43(c).

What is the Department’s reasoning for this proposal?

The Department shared on page 3 and on page 17 of the unofficial version of the announcement that the development of new regulations addressing Certification Procedures is to create a more rigorous process for certifying institutions to participate in Title IV HEA programs. The increased rigor is to protect the integrity of Title IV HEA programs and protect students from predatory and abusive behavior.

The announcement includes a quick summary of the proposed regulation subsection, 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32), on page 127. The summary indicates the following: “Amend § 668.14(b)(32) to require all programs that prepare students for occupations requiring programmatic accreditation or State licensure to meet those requirements and comply with all State consumer protection laws.” This language provides a concise statement to indicate institutions must determine if the program:

  • Is programmatically accredited, if required.
  • Satisfies all educational prerequisites for a professional license where the student is located (our issue of the day!).
  • Follows all consumer protection laws related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentation.

We are very interested in the Department’s reasoning and concerns related to institutions satisfying state educational prerequisites for a professional license at time of initial enrollment, but found less development of rationale of this issue as compared to others in this proposed rule package. The announcement, on page 496, indicates the reasoning of this proposed language is that the Department is aware that institutions are enrolling students in programs that do not meet the educational requirements for a state license. The result, the Department shares, is that students are often left with difficulty finding employment and owing student loans for credentials that do not qualify them to work in the occupation for which they were educated. We agree that institutions should be following state requirements when applicable. We wonder if there is data addressing specific professions or regions to know the extent of student harm due to the institutions’ failures to meet applicable state requirements.

However, we are unclear about further analysis of this regulation subsection as described on page 780, which indicates the following: “On the first point, proposed § 668.14(b)(32) would make it harder for institutions to offer programs that lead to licensure or certification whose length far exceeds what is required to obtain the approvals necessary to work in that field in a student’s State.” The explanation continues to address overly long programs. We believe the Department may have conflated this issue with a previous subsection 668.14(b)(26) about the length of gainful employment programs leading to a license or certification.

A continuation of this possible conflation is found on page 784 when the Department indicates, “The proposed changes in § 668.14(b)(32) would provide benefits to students by reducing the likelihood of them paying more for education and training programs that artificially extend their program length beyond what is needed to earn the licensure or certification for which they are being prepared.” The proposed language of 668.14(b)(32) indicates meeting state educational prerequisites. We are not clear why the Department expressed that “§ 668.14(b)(32) would provide benefits to students by reducing the likelihood of them paying more for education and training programs that artificially extend their program length beyond what is needed to earn the licensure or certification for which they are being prepared.” This analysis by the Department does not seem to address satisfying state educational prerequisites.

We found no analysis addressing the language in the proposed regulation amendment to the public notifications in 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v).

What Do These Proposed Responsibilities Mean and What are Our Concerns?

  1. Institution must determine that the program satisfies educational prerequisites where the student is located at time of enrollment.

This increased responsibility requires the institution to meet a higher bar of compliance and go beyond notifications. The institution’s  curriculum must now satisfy the state’s educational prerequisites in each state where the students are located at time of enrollment

Concern:

During rulemaking in Winter 2022, the Department’s proposed language indicated that the institution must “ensure” that each program “satisfies.” This new proposal replaces the word “ensure” with “determine.” We do not believe that the word “determine” is less of a legal burden than “ensure.”

In order for the institution to “determine” that the program “satisfies” educational prerequisites with any sort of legal certainty, we believe that the institution will need to seek affirmation from state licensing boards in each state that the institution is serving a student. We have learned through speaking with various national organizations of state licensing boards that professions and states vary widely. Professions in some states do not have an approval process for an out-of-state institution’s program to affirm satisfaction of educational requirements.

During rulemaking in Winter 2022, we provided a public comment during week one. We asked the Department if they had met with state licensing boards to learn of the process and structure for approvals for programs. We then offered to make some connections between Department staff and licensing board organizations or state agencies.

We also wonder about the Department’s view if the student changes location. It appears from the language of this proposed regulation that the responsibility to satisfy educational prerequisites is only based upon the location of the student at time of enrollment. Does this mean that the program is still eligible for Title IV aid if the student is no longer located in a state where the institution has determined that it satisfied educational prerequisites?

  • Public Notifications must include a list of all states where the institution is aware that the program does and does not meet such requirements.

This amended language appears to indicate that the institution’s responsibility would only be to list specific states for which they know the program “does” and “does not meet” state requirements due to the addition of the phrase “where the institution is aware”. It appears that a determination of each state and territory would no longer be required, as is currently required in regulation. The “no determination” option is proposed to be removed as an option for the public notifications.

Please note that there is no proposed amendment to the individualized notifications.

Concern:

This proposed language appears to lessen the institution’s public notifications to only the states where the institution has actual knowledge. This is different than the current regulations requiring institutions to address all states.

One may ask why the public notifications are necessary if the institution must determine that the program satisfies educational requirements in the state where the student is located at time of enrollment? Good question! There is no rationale offered for this amended language in the proposed regulations announcement, but we have a few thoughts.

The public notifications in this proposed form could provide notice to prospective students considering programs at various institutions. Additionally, the notifications could provide notice to enrolled students who may be considering a change of location. If a state is not listed in the public notifications, that is also notice to the students to be wary and ask questions about meeting requirements in states that are not listed.

The individualized notifications, however, should not be overlooked. The institution will remain responsible to prospective and enrolled students despite the institution’s responsibility to satisfy educational prerequisites where the student is located at time of enrollment. We wonder why the institution would accept a prospective student in a state where it does not satisfy educational prerequisites. However, it is reasonable to support an enrolled student with an individualized notification if the student is no longer located in the same state as at the time of initial enrollment.

Our Recommendations:

We maintain that an institution must follow all state laws and regulations in a state where the institution’s activities occur. If program approval is required in a state, we have always directed the institutions to obtain program approval in addition to state authorization to serve the students in a state. However, we are aware that not all states and professions maintain an approval process for the educational programs of out-of-state institutions. Although the state may have specific educational prerequisites for a license, the states themselves do not all have an approval mechanism to provide any legal certainty that a program satisfies educational prerequisites.

Additionally, we believe that there are reasonable motivations for a student to participate in a program from a state that does not satisfy all of the state educational prerequisites where the student is located at time of enrollment, for example, a:

  • Student may be located temporarily in a state attempting to pursue education while in the state (ex. active-duty military or military dependent),
  • Student may wish to obtain the education from a specific institution due to its strong reputation,
  • Student may wish to make the determination of location for employment based upon workforce needs after completion of the program,
  • Student may wish to obtain the first license in the state where the institution is located and then transfer the license through professional license compact and professional license reciprocity options,
  • Student may be aware that they can receive a provisional license in the state with time to complete the remaining state specific courses (ex. Teacher education licenses in some states).

In consideration of these motivations and the concern for the inability to obtain any legal certainty to determine that the program satisfies educational prerequisites, we offer the following recommendation.

The following recommendation was developed during the Winter 2022 rulemaking in collaboration with two negotiators representing consumer advocate groups and veterans. The two negotiators submitted this language during the third week of rulemaking and was met with interest by several other negotiators but was not approved at that time by the Department. We believe that we ran out of time for due consideration of this compromise that provides student protection and student flexibility. Subsection (iii) was added to be applicable to professional licensure programs.

Recommendation

(ii) Assess and satisfy the applicable educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification requirements in the State, if such prerequisites are available or can be obtained from the State,

(iii) Institutions may make case-by-case exceptions to enroll students in a program that fails to meet the requirements of (i) and/or (ii) by obtaining the prior signed written consent of each student who opts to knowingly enroll in such programs and states their reason for their decision.

The rationale of this recommendation was to provide some flexibility when there is not an approval process in a state as not to limit students’ choices due to the state’s oversight mechanism. Additionally, the recommendation intended to revive the former requirement of a written acknowledgement by a student for instances of reasonable motivations to participate in a program even if the program does not satisfy educational prerequisites.

We additionally would like to see the U.S. Department of Education engage with entities that coordinate with or oversee professional licensing boards to better inform them of concerns and requirements and to seek collaboration with state licensure boards to ultimately better serve the education and training of future licensed practitioners.

How Can you Participate in This Rulemaking Process?

Comment button graphic with a finger pointing to the button

As mentioned earlier, we hope that you will consider submitting a public comment. It is important for the Department to hear from the practitioners implementing rules to obtain your feedback whether it is in support of the proposed regulations or providing recommendations or asking more questions. We hope that we have provided information pertinent to your work in order to assess the impact on your institution or agency.

Institutional personnel, program personnel, or individuals may comment. For an institutional or programmatic comment, you need to navigate the proper government relations channels at your institution. Issues that receive a greater volume of content tend to receive more attention.

The Department has expressed interest in public comments and is specifically seeking responses to the directed questions found within the body of the announcement for the proposed regulations. On page 38 of the announcement the Department directly invites the public to assist them in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. To that end, they request the following:

  • Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department’s programs and activities.
  • The Department also welcomes comments on any alternative approaches to the subjects addressed in the proposed regulations.

We have seen the benefit of public comment to this Department on two very specific occasions in the last year. First, the Department indicated that they were persuaded by public comment about proposed regulations that appeared confusing regarding an amended definition of Distance Education. In this case, the Department responded by removing the amended language for the final regulations. Second, we have seen the Department actively responding with amended Third Party Servicer guidance due to the more than 1,100 public comments received. We appreciate the Department’s consideration of the view from the members of the public who are the key stakeholders in these issues.

This is your opportunity to tell your stories of student and institutional impact, ask clarifying questions, show support for the language, express challenges that could have unintentional consequences on students, or raise other concerns. You are urged to be positive and provide helpful suggestions.

Public comment submission process

The Department provides the following instructions:

  • Deadline to submit public comments is Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
  • Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov and accessible through the Federal Register Announcement.
  • Information on using regulations.gov, including instructions for finding a rule on the site and submitting comments, is available on the site under “FAQ.”
  • The Department will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or comments submitted after the comment period closes.
  • Remember to include the Docket ID at the top of your comments: ED-2023-OPE-0089

If you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via regulations.gov, please contact one of the program contact persons listed in the announcement. For certification procedures the contact person is Vanessa Gomez. Telephone: (202) 453–6708. Email: Vanessa.Gomez@ed.gov.

What’s Next?

Stay tuned as SAN and WCET will continue to follow and update on this process. SAN developed a webpage, U.S. Department of Education Rulemaking 2021-2022 Information, that follows all of the steps related to this rulemaking including this most recent release of proposed rules. There you will find access to resources including previous posts capturing the development of the regulations.

We recognize that the concerns we raised came from a small subsection of an issue with big implications. This subsection is complicated and seems to be flying under the radar of many. We are providing our best understanding of the Department’s announcement and recognize that we are continuing to learn as well. We wanted to share our impressions to attempt to simplify your work to find the information you need. Don’t forget to examine this post and Part I to share with others at your institution or organization…and submit a comment!

We are considering publishing an additional post (Part III) with more information and/or other communications to members or the public to address a few more aspects of the proposed rules for which we are concerned are not getting enough review.

…..and we are all back in the States at our respective desks and ready respond to your questions and observations!

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories
Policy

ED’s New Proposed Regulations: Part 1, State Authorization Reciprocity

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date May 24, 2023

Big changes could be in store for institutions that offer programs in other states and for the students they serve. This might surprise you as recent press articles about the Department of Education’s new proposed regulations focused solely on Gainful Employment programs. Our readers need to know that the new package of proposed Federal regulations has significant reach beyond that one issue.

We understand and support the consumer protection goals that motivated additional safeguards for students and Federal financial aid investments. We believe there are better paths to implementing and expanding protections than what is proposed. Meanwhile, institutional personnel should learn about the proposed changes and be vocal in support or opposition of these pending requirements and inform the Department about the impact on their institution and students if implemented as written.

We will post two blog posts this week on these regulations. These posts will provide background on the rulemaking process, give our opinions on the impact of what is being proposed for state authorization reciprocity and for programs leading to professional licensure, inform you on the commenting process, and encourage you to participate. Your voice matters.

New proposed U.S. Department of Education rules will have a deep impact on students enrolled in out-of-state institutions, specifically for: • state authorization reciprocity, and • programs leading to professional licensure.

This first post covers:

  • Background of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    • Use of the Program Participation Agreement to implement the rules.
    • The reasoning behind the proposed rules,
    • Next steps in the rulemaking process.
  • Background on proposed rules and their impact on state authorization reciprocity,
    • Which state laws are now subject to SARA?,
    • What changes are proposed?,
    • Our predictions of what would happen if enacted,
    • Our recommendations.
  • Members should prepare to comment.

Background on the New Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In late 2021 and into early 2022, the Department of Education held a Negotiated Rulemaking process that included several higher education issues around “institutional and programmatic eligibility” for federal financial aid. As a result of negotiations, the Department released a set of proposed regulations for comment. After responding to those comments, the Department can release final regulations and set an implementation date.

What Was Proposed?

Last week, a U.S. Department of Education press release announced the publication of the unofficial version of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the remaining issues from those negotiations. Coverage of the announcement (Inside Higher Ed, USA Today) would lead you to believe that Gainful Employment was the only issue addressed. Not so.

Immediately after the release last week, we alerted WCET and SAN members via email about two proposals under the “Certification Procedures” issue. Included are two proposals that are of particular interest to those at institutions serving students in other states, whether through distance education or in-person:

  • Programs leading to professional licensure must “satisfy” the educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification in that state where the student is located.
  • Institutions using state authorization reciprocity will be affected by the expectation that they comply “with all State consumer protection laws related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations, including both generally applicable State laws and those specific to educational institutions.”

These two issues are extremely easy to miss as they are buried in the unobvious “Certification Procedures” section, and they have received little notice in the press or by higher education organizations. We will get to the particulars of each of those proposals later in these blog posts.

How Are They Planning to Implement the Proposal?

SAN and WCET have been closely following those issues since they were first proposed in the “Certification Procedures” issue in rulemaking last year. The idea is to add this new language to the Department’s Program Participation Agreement (PPA). ” The PPA sets the conditions for “the initial and continued participation of an eligible institution in any Title IV, HEA program upon compliance with the provisions…” of the agreement. By signing, institutional leadership asserts that the college or university agrees to abide by the detailed conditions so as to remain eligible to disburse Federal financial aid.

Why Did They Make These Proposals?

We encourage you to comment. From the Department: “We seek feedback on the best way to construct this requirement, so that students are protected, financially and otherwise, without creating unnecessary burden on institutions.”

The proposals are based on concerns about protecting students as consumers and to assure that Department of Education financial aid investments are sound.

For professional licensure, they say: “We are aware of institutions enrolling students in programs that do not meet such requirements. Students in these programs often find themselves struggling to find employment and owing student loans on credentials that do not qualify them to work in the occupations for which they were trained“ (page 496 of the unofficial version. Note that we reference the unofficial version because it is easier to read and to reference by page number).

For reciprocity, they say: “We are concerned about past situations in which States have raised concerns about institutions that are physically located outside of its borders and taking advantage of students while the State is limited in its ability to apply its own consumer protection laws in these areas to protect its residents” (page 497-498).

It would be interesting to have data about the extent of these concerns and how often they happened overall and, for reciprocity purposes, with SARA-participating institutions.

What Are Next Steps?

Remember that these are proposed rules and are not yet effective. In brief, next steps include:

  • The Department will accept comments until Tuesday, June 20. Anyone may comment. We encourage anyone who supports or decries a proposal to participate. The Department is especially interested in hearing about the impact on institutions and students. We will give you more details on how to comment in the next post.
  • The Department will review and create responses to all the comments. As a result, they may make some changes to the final language.
  • The Department will release final language with its reaction to the comments, changes it made, and a timeline for implementation. If they release the final rules by November 1 of this year, they could become effective as early as July 1, 2024.

Meanwhile, you should probably start thinking about what you and your institution would do if this were to become effective in the summer of next year. Remember that volume matters. The more than 1,100 comments on Third-Party Servicers made a difference.

State Authorization Reciprocity – Background and Proposal

Dictionary.com defines “reciprocity” as “the relation or policy in commercial dealings between countries by which corresponding advantages or privileges are granted by each country to the citizens of the other.” While there could be multiple agreements for state authorization reciprocity, the big player is the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA). By joining SARA, its members (49 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) have voluntarily agreed to a standard set of regulatory requirements and to acknowledge the institutional recognition granted by another member. That recognition is limited to conducting distance education and additional enumerated activities (e.g., marketing, limited in-person instruction, practical experiences) in member states. For most states, its path to becoming a member of SARA required a bill to be passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. It is a voluntary process that required much thought and work in each state.

SARA and the Applicability of State Laws

For out-of-state institutions operating in a SARA member state, territory, or the District, those governments have agreed that they will follow SARA policies in recognizing and overseeing those colleges and universities. The state where the student is located may also enforce other rules not included in the SARA agreement, such as requirements overseen by other state agencies, such as for professional licensure programs, and enforcement of “general purpose” laws. Those “general purpose” laws include laws that any business would need to follow, such as conducting fraud or misrepresentation in dealing with customers…or, for institutions, students.

This concept of “general-purpose” laws is actually included in the Department of Education’s definition (Chapter 34, § 600.2) of a “state authorization reciprocity agreement”:

“An agreement between two or more States that authorizes an institution located and legally authorized in a State covered by the agreement to provide postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students located in other States covered by the agreement and cannot prohibit any member State of the agreement from enforcing its own general-purpose State laws and regulations outside of the State authorization of distance education.”

A Change to the Applicability of State Laws is Being Proposed

The new language proposed by the Department of Education (page 957-958) states:

“(32) In each State in which the institution is located or in which students enrolled by the institution is located, as determined at the time of initial enrollment in accordance with 34 CFR 600.9(c)(2), the institution must determine that each program eligible for title IV, HEA program funds-…
…(iii) Complies with all State consumer protection laws related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations, including both generally applicable State laws and those specific to educational institutions.”

During negotiated rulemaking talks last year, representatives of consumer protection groups sought to allow each state to be able to enforce ANY laws specific to educational institutions. They suggested that the benefits that would remain for those participating in reciprocity are a common application and common fee. We believe the Department staff heard the concerns and suggestions of those groups.

If implemented as they suggested last year, it would not have officially ended reciprocity, but it would have severely lessened the value of participating in SARA. We liken it to having a driver’s license, except instead of zooming across the border at 75, you have to stop, take an eye exam, pay a fee, and pass a quick test..and what happens at those border checks would vary each time you crossed state lines

We believe that the Department was trying to seek a compromise. They proposed limiting the expansion of the applicability of laws specific to institutions to “closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations” as a way to expand consumer protections while still preserving more elements of reciprocity. One piece of evidence that the Department wishes to limit the impact is that the Department suggests (page 498) this change would NOT include “tuition refund policies, rules on site visits, and State-specific outcomes metrics.” They also allude to this compromise as they solicit comments giving feedback by saying (page 499):

“Therefore, we seek feedback on the best way to construct this requirement so that students are protected, financially and otherwise, without creating unnecessary burden on institutions.”

We are heartened to see the attempt at compromise. It is a worthy goal to find a way to expand student consumer protections even if it means a slightly less robust version of reciprocity. As long as it does not leave only a shell of reciprocity.

State Authorization Reciprocity – Our Analysis and Possible Comments You Might Make

In this section, we will give you observations on the proposed language and give our readers some ideas about comments that you might wish to make. Remember that comments are strongest if you reflect your support or concerns based upon experiences that you can share. Below are our questions…

Now, we hate to applaud compromise and then turn immediately to the antithesis of cooperation – legal action. But we feel we must.

In the United States, higher education is under the purview of the states. SARA is a state-to-state agreement. While federal financial aid is run by the U.S. Department of Education, can it actually use the backdoor of institutional eligibility to force the states to change? This is both a legal and political issue.

It’s a technical issue, but the state authorization and transcript withholding proposals were both raised during the second session of the rulemaking committee, well after the agenda was set for the rulemaking panel. Typically, the agenda is frozen at the first meeting. The Department and facilitator even warned negotiators to stop raising new topics, but they did anyway.

There are two other technical issues in which this proposed requirement is at odds with other state authorization regulations from the Department:

  • The proposed requirement conflicts with Department’s own definition of “state authorization reciprocity agreement” (Chapter 34, § 600.2) that we cited above. It’s an easy fix, but we know that the Department has four wildly definitions (we found three in this WCET analysis and forgot about “clock hour” as a fourth) of “distance education.” We do not want to see the practice of multiple definitions repeated here if their goal is understanding and compliance by institutional personnel.
  • The proposed “at the time of enrollment” language conflicts with the Department’s regulatory section on state authorization (Chapter 34, § 600.9(c)(2)(iii)). In that section, institutions also must act if “the student’s location has changed to another State.”

If this proposal is legally tenuous, actively working on a compromise with SARA might be a better path. More on that later.

How and Who Will Interpret the Meaning of “Closure, Recruitment, and Misrepresentations”?

So…this question arises from WCET as an organization that has been trying to interpret (with only partial success) the term “regular and substantive interaction” since 1992.  WCET and SAN members have similar fears for the words “closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations.”

If left as they are, who interprets these terms? We are feeling déjà vu with the recent “Third-Party Servicers” guidance where it appeared the language was clear to the Department, but was not clear to anyone else.

If interpretation is left to each State, there will be a crazy patchwork and for some states the number of laws that could be included for reciprocity-participating institutions could be massive and could be minimal for others. It would be better if the same requirements were common across all states. Otherwise, we would be driving back towards uneven consumer protections and much time could be spent in discussing what the rights of each state are.

Taking an initial try at defining what additional rules states might consider as being relevant “State consumer protection laws” and thus subject to the variable application of this proposed rules in each State leads us to this list:

  • Closure
    • Contributing to tuition recovery funds,
    • Submitting to institutional surety bonds,
    • State catastrophic event policies,
    • Records retention processes,
    • Teach-out process.
  • Recruitment
    • Marketing requirements and restrictions.
    • Advertising requirements and restrictions.
    • The need to register recruiters or staff who physically appear in a state.
    • Certain requirements for staff or faculty residing or present in a state.
    • Physical presence requirements.

This may also have a detrimental effect on a student who moves from state to state. For example, a student moves to a state where the institution no longer enrolls students due to additional compliance requirements of that state. Regulators in other states often are willing to grant exceptions for “one-off” situations, but that becomes more difficult when needing to obtain that exception from multiple state agencies. As a result, the student may need to discontinue enrollment at the institution.

In the reasoning for adding their proposal, the Department focuses (497-498) on “tuition recovery funds” in which institutions pay a portion of their income to cover losses to students at institutions that close. A quick review shows that about 10 states have tuition recovery funds and another six have such funds for a subset of institutions. If implemented, in the future institutions would have to contribute to the fund in each of those states in which it wishes to recruit or enroll students. A proposal to add a tuition recovery fund requirement in the current SARA Policy Modification Process would collect 0.25% of all institutional income from SARA enrollments. Some state-based tuition recovery funds collect a much higher rate of tuition and fees for students enrolled in that state.

Finally, for misrepresentation, we are surprised by this one. Through SARA, states are already able to enforce fraud and misrepresentation rules on SARA-participating institutions. There have been those in some of the consumer protection groups who have, themselves, misrepresented this point. We are at a loss at to what adding this term adds to protections. Perhaps it is here to guard against other reciprocity agreements that do not address misrepresentation?

Our Predictions on What Would Happen If the Proposal is Implemented

The Department wishes feedback on how to expand consumer protections “without creating unnecessary burdens on institutions. We will start with the latter and end with our consumer protection recommendations.

We predict that:

  • Without further clarification, some states will take great latitude in trying to fit every regulation they can into one of the “closure, recruiting, or misrepresentation” buckets.
  • Meanwhile, other states will continue to underperform in student protections. This is true with or without SARA, but SARA raised the bar for many of these states and it does not get sufficient credit for that.
  • Institutions will cease accepting students from some states. The cost of compliance and compliance staffing will simply be too high. The accompanying professional licensure proposal will hasten that retreat from some states.
  • With less competition in some states, the beneficiaries will be the remaining for-profit institutions and the large public and non-profit colleges and universities. We doubt that enriching these institutions was a desired outcome of the proposal.

Our Take on State Authorization and Our Recommendations

We applaud the intent to compromise, but think it lands short of doing the hard work to expand consumer protections in a much more meaningful way. We make a couple recommendations below.

Very Specifically Define the Terms

We believe the phrase “closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations” has the nugget of a good idea, but this particular choice of words is far too broad. Those words leave too much to interpretation. And unevenness in interpretation by states will undermine reciprocity and leave students with uneven protection.

We also believe that leaving the terms broadly or undefined could lead to some unexpected outcomes in some states. First, it is rarely stated that some forms of “protection” are actually “protectionism” serving as methods for eliminating out-of-state competition. Additionally, given the current political climate, the term “recruitment” could be weaponized. For example, one state may introduce a rule disallowing any mention of diversity, equity, and inclusion by institutions serving its citizens. Another state may require culturally-sensitive content and the use of chosen pronouns by faculty. We do not wish to explore the culture or moral underpinnings of those suggestions, but states are in very different places on these matters.

Instead, if the Department wishes to continue down this path, we suggest a limited set of definitive terms that narrowly target common consumer protection problems witnessed in both in-person and distance education. Here are some concepts that could be expanded:

  • Truth in advertising and truth in marketing requirements.
  • Prohibitions against high pressure sales.
  • Prohibitions against recruiters being paid on a per student basis.
  • A tuition recovery fund or institutional surety bond, but not both.

Be Brave and Expand Certain Consumer Protections to ALL Students

Alternative to the above recommendation, we pose an audacious challenge with broader impact.

We agree that more can be done to protect students against closure. Therefore, we challenge the Department, SARA, and consumer protection groups to seek a consensus path that expands protections to ALL students.

A major problem with what the Department is suggesting is that consumer protection will be dependent on the state in which the student is located. The critics of SARA often condemn it as creating a two-tiered set of student protections. We fail to see how a 52-tiered (the 49 states plus 3 other governmental entities that are SARA members) set of consumer protections is a better option.

Additionally, the actual benefits provided by existing state tuition reimbursement programs are variable. The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) is a consumer advocacy group) that reviewed California’s Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). They found that: “Unfortunately, thus far STRF has only provided financial relief to a relatively small number of students affected by school failure. While STRF has the potential to be a critical resource for California students harmed by failing schools, it is clear that improvements to visibility and accessibility to students are needed in order to accomplish that goal.”

Therefore, we challenge the Department to work with SARA (the regional compacts and NC-SARA) and us (SAN and WCET) in creating a national review to plan how reciprocity can best include a program for tuition recovery fund or an institutional surety bond. Note this would not be a federal program, but one that would be part of a state-to-state agreement with broad coverage among the member states.

Simply put, ALL STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL PROTECTION. What is proposed falls far short.

Before the Department’s recommendation was made, we commented on a proposal from several of the consumer protection organizations for “Protecting Students from Abrupt Closures” as part of the SARA Policy Modification process. The consumer protection groups proposed a single tuition recovery fund to be operated by SARA.

In our response, we concurred that they are on the right track, but observed that “what they proposed is far from a complete, implementable proposal.” We raised a host of legal and operational questions that need to be considered in implementing either a single tuition recovery fund or surety bonding requirement. Alternatively, SARA could require its member states to meet minimum requirements for a tuition recovery fund or surety bond.

This will be hard. This will take time. It can be done.

Russ was on the first two committees that led to the creation of SARA and we were hopeful of getting 15 states involved. Cheryl made the State Authorization Network what it is today. Both tasks were impossible, but we should not shy away from doing the impossible. Let’s protect more students.

What the Department can do is help and be part of the solution.

What’s Next?

Stay tuned for our next blog post. In that one we will cover:

  • Another Departmental proposal regarding programs that lead to professional licensure, in which that recommend that “the institution must determine” that each program eligible for Title IV, satisfies the educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification in that state.” (Bold added, see page 957-958).
  • Why and how you should submit a comment to the Department.

Meanwhile, we hope that you examine this post, talk to others at your institution or organization…and submit a comment.

…oh yes, did we tell you that the rulemaking document was 1,077 pages long and that Cheryl was on vacation in England when it came out?

Let us know if you have questions or observations.

Tags , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories
Practice

What’s Up with Work-life Balance? Considering new ways of living well.

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date May 18, 2023

Did you know that May is Mental Health Awareness month?

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the U.S. has observed this since 1949. The month is a focused “national movement to raise awareness about mental health.” You can learn more about the movement on the Mental Health Awareness Month website. Mental Health and wellness impacts us all in many ways, both personally and professionally.

When you think about personal or professional wellness, what enters your mind?

Word cloud or collage with wellness related words: Self-care. Work-life balance. Wellness. Well-being. Intention. Mindfulness. Authentic Self. Grace. Self-care. Work-life balance. Wellness. Well-being. Health. Healthy lifestyle. Relaxation. Happy. Positivity. Mental health. Emotional health. Fitness. Strength. Adaptability. Self-care. Work-life balance. Wellness. Well-being. Intention. Mindfulness. Authentic Self. Grace. Health. Healthy lifestyle. Relaxation. Happy. Positivity. Self-care. Work-life balance. Wellness. Well-being. Happy Mental health. Emotional health. Fitness. Strength. Adaptability. Resiliency. Resiliency.

Here are some of the words that pop into my head:

  • Self-care.
  • Work-life balance.
  • Wellness.
  • Well-being.
  • Intention.
  • Mindfulness.
  • Authentic Self.
  • Grace.
  • Health.
  • Healthy lifestyle.
  • Relaxation.
  • Happy.
  • Positivity.
  • Mental health.
  • Emotional health.
  • Fitness.
  • Strength.
  • Adaptability.
  • Resiliency.

I have been thinking about this a lot over the past few years. As I’m sure you remember, the COVID-19 pandemic changed our world in many (many!) ways. One of the bigger ways – a new focus on work and life-balance and wellness.

Where will this focus take us? Can we orient toward a professional environment that prioritizes the mental and physical health and well-being of staff but also ensures we meet our productivity goals? I believe we can. And, apparently, so do many of our colleagues in the WCET and higher education community.

That’s why WCET selected the topic of Leadership and Wellness for the month of May. To me, having strong, adaptable, and resilient team members means we accomplish some amazing work in our planned timeframes. However, without healthy team members, deadlines are missed, or mistakes are made.

What do people want when it comes to work-life balance?

View of two feet standing with one foot in sneakers standing on grass, one foot in professional shoes on a sidewalk.

Cindi Fukami, a professor in the Daniels College of Business at the University of Denver, has said that the need for work-life balance isn’t new.

But COVID “accelerated this trend and the conflict between work and life demands was front and center.”

The U.S., unfortunately, seems to outpace other nations in hours worked per week and employees have less vacation time and fewer benefits for working parents.

Fukami advised that people just want a “productive life along with a productive work life” (Ballard, 2022).

Why should we prioritize this?

The Great Resignation highlighted a voluntary and mass exodus of workers associated with the pandemic, yes, but there are deeper issues at play. Studies suggest that the trend of leaving jobs that didn’t offer exactly what employees want out of their work and their life, was happening before the pandemic. COVID just pushed it over the edge a bit.

  • More experienced workers used employment changes due to the pandemic as a time to retire.
  • Younger employees saw the potential impact of the pandemic on their life and health and decided they “have one life to live and they want to live it to the fullest.” That usually doesn’t include staying at a job that doesn’t make them happy or matter to them (Phipps, 2022).

Lack of benefits are often cited as reasons people quit a job. These can include:

  • Low pay,
  • Lack of advancement opportunity,
  • Feeling disrespected at work,
  • Childcare issues (many of which continue still),
  • Lack of flexible hours or choice of hours,
  • Lack or poor health insurance and paid time off (Phipps, 2022).

Simone Phipps, professor of management at Middle Georgia State University, offers that employers must focus on employee wellbeing and listen to what their staff tell them they need. By modeling wellness, boundary setting, and balance as a leader, team members begin to adopt these healthy behaviors. In turn, they become more productive, more creative, and more collaborative.  I love that Dr. Phipps and others have said that we all need to focus on our “shared humanity” when it comes to navigating this new way of living.

Our Theme this Month

As I said, our theme this month is Leadership and Wellness.

To help you consider your own personal wellness and the wellness of your team (whether you are in a leadership position or just want to help role model wellbeing in the workplace for your peers), WCET will offer resources and events in this topic area.

  • May 19, WCET members are invited to join Christine Lustik, Leadership Development and Coaching Specialist, to discuss Wellness and Work during our May Closer Conversation.
  • May 24 – Free and open to all, join us for a #WCETWebcast on Balancing Leadership and Life While Supporting Your Team. This webcast features tools and resources for mindfulness and specific tips for leading in this area.
  • May Closer Look – releasing next week via wcetNEWS, our WCET Member-only Closer Look will be on Leadership Tips for Balancing Wellness and Supporting Your Team.

We hope you’ll join us in honoring May as Mental Health Awareness month by learning new ways to focus on your own well-being and perhaps help your colleagues as well.

References

Ballard, Janette. (2022). From Pandemic to Endemic: The Future of Work-Life Balance. University of Denver News. Retrieved from https://www.du.edu/news/pandemic-endemic-future-work-life-balance

Phipps, Simone. (2022). What Exactly Is “The Great Resignation?” Middle Georgia State University. Retrieved from https://www.mga.edu/news/2022/04/what-is-the-great-resignation.php

Tags , ,
Categories
Policy

Welcome to the Wild, Wild West of AI and the Higher Education Institution

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date May 11, 2023
Old horse barn, hitching post, and watering trough at Gammons Gulch, a recreated Old West town and the site of dozens of movies, commerical shoots and the like in the remote desert north of Benson in Cochise County, Arizona. The town was built piece by piece and with donations of vintage artifacts beginning in 1972 by Jay Gammons, a onetime security man at a movie studio in Tucson, northwest of here.

A general perusal of Inside Higher Education, Chronicle of Higher Education, or the internet in general turns up countless fears that generative AI, especially in the form of large language models such as ChatGPT, will increase attacks on academic integrity.

A smartphone with a brief introduction of ChatGPT on it.
Photo by Sanket Mishra on Unsplash

Take Jeremy Weissman’s opinion piece in Inside Higher Ed where he compares ChatGPT with the early days of the COVID pandemic.

Calling ChatGPT and generative AI a “plague upon education,” Weissman opines “In these early days of the GPT spread, we are largely defenseless against this novel threat to human intelligence and academic integrity. A return to handwritten and oral in-class assignments—a lockdown response—may be the only immediate effective solution as we wait for more robust protections to arise.”

As a result of such fears, most of the discussion around generative AI and institutional policy has revolved around academic integrity, but there are myriad other areas that institutions need to be aware of and make policy to address.

Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence

Recently, WCET conducted a survey of college and university leaders regarding the use of generative AI on their campuses. Of the more than 600 respondents, only 8 percent indicated that they had implemented policies around artificial intelligence. Most of those policies, 21 percent, were around academic integrity. Of the 57 percent of respondents at institutions planning or developing policies:

  • 70 percent were planning academic integrity policies,
  • 51 percent policies around instructional use,
  • 32 percent policies around data security,
  • 27 percent intellectual property policies,
  • 26 percent privacy policies, and,
  • .04 percent accessibility policies.

Note: Full analysis of this survey, including institutional recommendations will be published in June.

That lack of institutional policy is born out in research conducted by Primary Research Group earlier this year. That research found that only 14 percent of college administrators reported the existence of institutional guidelines and only 18 percent of instructors reported having policies and guidelines on the use of generative AI in their classes.

A Perusal of Current Policy Standings

A lack of other policies notwithstanding, academic integrity is often the first policy area that institutions and faculty address, and such policies run the gamut from completely outlawing any use of generative AI to allowing for its usage with appropriate attribution. For example, the University of Missouri’s general academic dishonesty policy states, “Academic honesty is fundamental to the activities and principles of the University… Any effort to gain an advantage not given to all students is dishonest whether or not the effort is successful.” The institution’s informational page on AI usage goes on to state, “Students who use ChatGPT and similar programs improperly are seeking to gain an unfair advantage, which means they are committing academic dishonesty.”

Pile of multicolored books.
Photo by Kimberly Farmer on Unsplash

The Ohio State University takes a slightly different tact by outlawing the use of generative AI tools unless an instructor explicitly gives permission for students to use such tools. The institution’s academic integrity and artificial intelligence page states, “To maintain a culture of integrity and respect, these generative AI tools should not be used in the completion of course assignments unless an instructor for a given course specifically authorizes their use… [T]hese tools should be used only with the explicit and clear permission of each individual instructor, and then only in the ways allowed by the instructor.” Most institutions crafting generative AI academic integrity policy appear to be adapting existing academic integrity policies as well as ceding the development of such policy to instructors.

Although there is currently no comprehensive directory of course level AI usage policies, Lance Eaton has begun to crowdsource examples of such policies. A perusal of this collection of classroom policies indicate that most policies can be categorized in two areas—bans of generative AI and use of generative AI with attribution. One such policy outlawing the use of AI reads, “Some student work may be submitted to AI or plagiarism detection tools in order to ensure that student work product is human created. The submission of AI generated answers constitutes plagiarism and is violation of CSCC’s student code of conduct.” Or, as one instructor from Northeast Lakeview College submitted for that institution’s ENGL 1301, 1302, 2322, 2323, an 2338 courses— “Unless otherwise explicitly instructed, students are not allowed to use any alternative generation tools for any type of submission in this course. Every submission should be an original composition that the student themselves wholly created for this course.”

Most of the sample policies catalogued by Eaton treat AI generated content as any other non-student generated content and require attribution if used. For example, for theater courses at one small liberal arts college, syllabi contain the following policy: “All work submitted in this course must be your own. Contributions from anyone or anything else—including AI sources, must be properly quoted and cited every time they are used. Failure to do so constitutes an academic integrity violation, and I will follow the institution’s policy to the letter in those instances.” While some policies, such as Ethan Mollick’s with the Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania proclaims, “I expect you to use AI (ChatGPT and image generation tools, at a minimum), in this class. In fact, some assignments will require it. Learning to use AI is an emerging skill.” Mollick goes on to warn students, “Be aware of the limits of ChatGPT: If you provide minimum effort prompts, you will get low quality results… Don’t trust anything it says. If it gives you a number or fact, assume it is wrong unless you either know the answer or can check in with another sources… AI is a tool but one that you need to acknowledge using. Please include a paragraph at the end of any assignment that uses AI explaining what you used the AI for and what prompts you used to get the results… Be thoughtful about when this tool is useful. Don’t use it if it isn’t appropriate for the case or circumstances.”

Other Institutional Policy Areas

There are numerous policy areas beyond academic integrity that institutions need to take into consideration when determining AI usage on their campus. Perhaps chief among these areas is data privacy and data security. Large language model artificial intelligence is built on the ingestion of massive amounts of data. Data entered into current generative models (such as ChatGPT) could be stored. Thus, faculty and staff must be cautioned against providing generative AI with FERPA protected student data that might compromise student data privacy. Additionally, institutions may want to consider intellectual property policies that consider the creation of generative AI assisted works. There is currently considerable discussion around whether or not AI generated work can be copyrighted. Institutions would benefit from developing intellectual property policies that address intellectual property and generative AI. Finally, institutions should consider the ways in which generative AI can impact accessibility. Although generative AI can function as an accommodation for some students, not all generative AI tools are currently accessible to all users. As faculty begin to incorporate generative AI into their courses, institutions should consider what to do when an AI tool does not meet ADA accessibility requirements.

What Your Institution Can Do

Institutions cannot afford to wait to address generative AI and should begin developing policies now. As Daniel Dolan and Ekin Yasin write in their March 23, 2023 Inside Higher Ed piece, “A Guide to Generative AI Policy Making,” institutions should respond to generative AI with speed, strategic purpose, and “inclusive focus on equitable student value.”

Although WCET will be providing our members with more specific recommendations in the coming months, some general recommendations include:

Example of an old west hitching post - a wooden stand one could use to tie up and leave horses.
Old horse barn and hitching post by C.M.
Highsmith. Retrieved from the Library of Congress.
  • Create an institutional taskforce comprised of all campus stakeholders including faculty, instructional design staff, educational technology professionals, IT representatives, and students.
  • Determine your institution’s greatest challenges and biggest questions regarding generative AI. Once you have determined these, you can make an informed decision as to what challenges should be addressed with institutional policies versus what should be addressed with course level policies.
  • Review what other institutions are doing.
  • Make sure to take equity into consideration. For a general overview of ethics and equity in generative AI, consult WCET’s April 20, 2023 blog post “Equity in a World of Artificial Intelligence.”
  • Don’t pretend that the challenges surrounding generative AI are going away. Artificial intelligence is here to stay, and institutions need to address the challenges that it poses head on.

As one respondent in the recent WCET generative AI survey put it, “It’s the wild, wild west. And we don’t have any horses.”

Generative AI isn’t going anywhere. Already we have seen its use and complexity grow by leaps and bounds in just the last six months. Just as institutions have developed intellectual property, privacy, data security, academic integrity, and accessibility policies, now institutions need to revisit those policies considering generative AI.

We cannot afford to stick our collective heads in the sand. It’s time to saddle up and ride into the wild, wild west.

Tags , , ,
Categories
Practice

Personalized Adaptive Learning in Algebra-Based Introductory Physics Courses at the University of Central Florida

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date May 4, 2023

As we start our new awards season here at WCET, we’re thrilled to continue to feature our previous honorable mentions for the 2022 WOW Award. Our judges were so impressed by this project and the inspiration the team showed that we wanted to honor their work. Thank you to Archana, Baiyun, and Joseph for sharing your experiences with us!

As I mentioned, the 2023 awards season has recently started. Read today’s post and then visit our awards page to learn more about this year’s WOW Award nominations!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

At the University of Central Florida, we have strategically implemented Personalized Adaptive Learning (PAL) courseware to enhance student success in large-enrollment algebra-based College Physics courses. These foundation courses are taught in studio- and lecture-mode format, which traditionally have high DFW (D or F grade, Withdrawal) rates. Powered by the Realizeit Adaptive Intelligent Engine, the PAL course is designed to address individual student learning preferences, identify those at risk in real-time, provide flexibility, offer unique pathways through the course material, and adjust media presentations and concepts based on individual student skills and preferences. By customizing the courseware to meet individual student needs, we aim to improve student engagement and promote academic success.

Starting the Transformation

Collaborating with instructional designers and programmers, Dr. Archana Dubey spearheaded a course redesign initiative aimed at transforming algebra-based introductory physics courses. The College Physics pathway consists of two courses, College Physics I (PHY2053) and College Physics II (PHY2054), which are offered primarily for students majoring in information technology, the biological sciences, and pre-health professions. Several students taking these courses plan to take the medical college admission test. Approximately 4,500 students take these courses each year. Post redesign and over the past three years, we have observed:

  • improved student success,
  • increased learning outcomes, and,
  • enhanced engagement with course materials.

These outcomes are a result of using the PAL strategy. This transformation has resulted in significant positive impacts on the students, ensuring they receive a quality education that prepares them for their future academic and professional pursuits.

Setting the Stage – the Course Design Process

To understand more about how powerful these changes have been, we’ll review some of the adjustments made to introductory Physics courses.

In the course pathway design process, Dr. Dubey:

  • Constructed the learning map for College Physics courses. Upon first entry, students are presented a collection of lessons that can be navigated in a predefined sequence. After students complete the Determine Knowledge quiz, the system unlocks one or more lessons based on the level of content proficiency demonstrated by students.
  • Chunked the learning content into modules and smaller lessons and established how those lessons interrelate for prerequisite and remediation relations, and cognitive and difficulty levels. Each lesson consists of learning materials, algorithmic worked examples, check your understanding practices, and summaries.
  • Applied alternative and effective delivery modalities for particular concepts, including text, images, videos, simulations, and interactive worked examples. Figure 1 showcases a lesson with two interactive examples that explained the problem-solving steps in detail.
A Lesson with Two Interactive Examples
Figure 1: A Lesson with Two Interactive Examples
  • Created a large bank of formative assessment and targeted feedback continuously to drive learning and to ensure competency acquisition. The assessments consist of both conceptual questions and algorithmic application problems.

The PAL assignments for the College Physics pathway courses are structured as focused lessons that interrelate prerequisite and remediation relations. Once opened, these assignments are available to the students to work on until the day of the final exam, which helps students to progress at their own pace and on their own time. To encourage fearless perseverance, students are allowed multiple-attempts and submissions. The highest score is what counts as the final grade. This motivates students to improve their scores, which improves their learning as well.

Every time a student logs in to work on an assignment, the system selects questions from the question bank designed by the instructor especially for that section. This means that the students work on variety of problems and concept questions that are relevant for their specific class and section. The numerical values in the problems are randomized and the questions are in multiple-choice and ‘enter the answer’ formats. The multiple-choice problems have eight answer choices. Students have the option to flag questions they struggle with, and the ‘instructor feedback’ option facilitates timely intervention. Additionally, the just-in-time instructor dashboard helps the instructor address student questions, customize in-person lectures accordingly, and provide personalized remediation or accelerated interventions. This approach enables students to receive timely and targeted support, which helps to improve their learning outcomes and overall academic success.

Outcomes

The redesigned adaptive College Physics I course has been delivered to students since the fall of 2019. Since the initial implementation of PHY2053, Dr. Dubey has evaluated students’ learning outcomes and made enhancements to address students’ difficulties.

example assignment/question with digital version of graph paper
Figure 2: Widget question on vectors.

For instance, videos and Physics Education Technology (PhET) simulations have been incorporated to provide students with interactive visual aids that can help clarify concepts. Students often struggle to solve problems where they have to follow a number of steps to get the answer. Hence, step-by-step interactive example problems have been created to guide students through problem-solving process. In these examples, students answer a sequence of questions designed to reinforce problem-solving strategies. Additional graphing questions (Figure 2) have been added to help students practice their understanding of vectors, which has resulted in a continuous improvement in their learning. These enhancements have been well-received by students, who report a better understanding of the material and an increased ability to apply what they have learned to solve physics problems.

The College Physics II course, PHY2054, was launched in fall 2022. In this course, students receive individualized remediation lessons from PHY2053 based on their performance. This approach allows students to review and reinforce concepts from the previous course to better prepare them for more advanced material. The personalized approach to learning, coupled with the incorporation of new instructional materials, has led to significant improvements in students’ understanding of physics and their academic success.

What’s Next

Here at UCF, we’re so proud that our personalized approach has led to these improvements and successes. We believe that this type of course redesign can be beneficial for many types of courses and institutions.

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Our Commitment to Improve – An Accessibility Review of WCET’s Website

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date April 28, 2023

In this post, Rosa Calabrese (WCET’s Manager, Digital Design) and Russ Poulin (WCET’s Executive Director) share our organization’s journey over this past year in improving our website. We have made much progress and there is still more to be done. We hope that this story will inspire some of you to take the first steps to follow us on your own web accessibility journey. We also discussed this journey in a recent WCET Webcast. Your students, staff, and community members deserve no less.

– Rosa and Russ

WCET has long been dedicated to creating resources that are accessible to everyone by doing our best to maintain AA standards on our website and other online materials. We also have long advocated that our members should ensure that their web services and online courses similarly meet the accessibility needs of their students.

In 2019, I (Rosa) wrote a two-part blog about the accessibility of our then-current website based on standards and guidelines from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) website. Over the course of that review, I found some issues on our site, and learned how to rectify some of them as well. Though, as anyone who has ever worked with web accessibility probably knows, accessibility is an on-going process rather than a single task that can be completed and checked off, so we have continued to work on accessibility in many more ways since then.

In 2021, WCET launched a new website. This launch included a move from our previous hosting site to WordPress, a branding redesign, and a substantial restructuring of content. While we paid attention to accessibility best practices in building the site, we still wondered how well we had accomplished our goal. Therefore, we took a gulp and decided that it was time for an independent, third-party review.

Less than a year after the formal launch, we contracted with WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind) to do a formal review of the accessibility of our website. This work provided us with significantly more detailed results than my 2019 amateur review. Based on the WebAIM review, we have spent the last 10 months working to update our website to create a better online experience for users with disabilities…and all our users.

First Steps

hands drawing a wireframe
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Once Russ initiated the connection with WebAIM and we drew up a formal contract, we began the project by selecting web pages to be reviewed.

We picked 15 pages that we felt formed a good representation of different types of content and features on our website. Among those 15 pages, we chose a combination of pages that are unique but frequently visited as well as pages that use common content types and structures. Through those pages, most of the content types on our entire website were reviewed.

After the original phase of the project, we came to realize that it would also be prudent to ask WebAIM to review a couple PDFs for us, as PDF accessibility requirements differ from the accessibility requirements of webpages. We chose two PDFs from recent reports that we believe are representative of many of our other PDFs.

Initial Results

WebAIM’s accessibility review of our website contained a 20+ page document that detailed our website issues and suggested possible remedies, both to the specific pages that we provided and to “global features” like our menu or footer. WebAIM ranked the severity of different issues on a four-point scale from 1 (indicating “Critical”) through 4 (indicating a “Recommendation” only).

The subsequent reviews of our PDFs were explained in two new, shorter documents that were equally detailed in evaluation and recommendations.

Once we received this document, we compiled the findings in a spreadsheet and indicated which tasks would be fixed internally by WCET staff and which tasks would be fixed by the WCET web developers under WCET supervision. We coordinated with our web developers to further breakdown their set of tasks into changes that could be made to our website alone. Additionally, since our website used WICHE’s (our parent organization’s) web template, we created a set of tasks that had to be completed in partnership with the WICHE web team.

an individual using an assistive technology device

While WCET’s website was built using WICHE’s template, we made changes to the styles of the site and to certain content types to better fit our needs. Even so, many aspects of our two sites remained the same and used the same root structure. This took some easy negotiating with WICHE staff, but it ultimately resulted in improvements to both sites.

Since breaking up the tasks into these three groups (internal, external WCET, and external WCET & WICHE) we have been moving forward with tasks for each group simultaneously.

Meanwhile, our contact at WebAIM remains available to provide more assistance whenever anyone on our project has any questions. Furthermore, we are planning for WebAIM to re-review certain pages on our website once we have completed the corrections so that we can ensure that we have been successful.

Examples of Identified Issues

The types of issues that WebAIM identified on our website were quite varied. While not an exhaustive overview of all of our issues, we have listed below several accessibility issues that we had on our website that we are currently working to address.

Alternative Text. Unfortunately, the review identified the incorrect use of alternative text in several places. While we knew that alt text needs to be provided for things like images, and that decorative images that provided no real value to the page could be designated with a null tag (which a screenreader would not read aloud) we did not always write these correctly.

  • First, the alt text of logos should always include all text that is in the logo.
  • Additionally, while we had been applying double quotation marks, which indicates a null tag for all decorative images, in our site the resulting alt text was incorrect. Our site is hosted on WordPress, which automatically adds quotation marks around all alternative text, so by adding our own quotation marks, the result was that screenreaders would read out the alternative text of four quotation marks. Plus, null tags would not be marked as decorative unless the alt text field was actually left empty. It’s important to understand the technical requirements for this process for your specific site.

Color and Contrast

Although we did our best to make it so that all text had appropriate contrast with the background so that it would be easily readable, there were a few places on our site that we missed, such as when blue hyperlinks appeared on a background that is a color other than white. We’ve are now looking for solutions on a case-by-case basis to make sure this isn’t a problem, and fixing the issues by darkening hyperlink text in certain locations, or by removing a background color and replacing it with white.

Not Relying on Color Alone

We learned that elements such as hyperlinks need or arrows keys need to be differentiated from surrounding imagery by more than just color. For example, hyperlinks are often distinguished from regular text using underlines and colored text. We were missing underlines from several hyperlinks.

Menu Items

We learned that pages within the primary (or main) menu that have drop down menu items should contain links to all the sub-pages from that landing page. In other words, there must be links to the child pages on the parent page. We had trouble with this on our “For Members” page, for example, which didn’t include links to its sub-pages, We’ve altered the page content now so that it reflects the menu architecture.

Movable Features

Website features that move on their own – such as the carousel of banners at the top of our home page or the carousel of sponsor logos at the bottom of our home page – need to have the ability to be paused or stopped. We’re still in the middle of this fix! Come back again soon to see the final results.

Keyboard Navigation

All website features need to be available via keyboard navigation. Before we started this process, we had several content types that had hover-over functionality that was not reachable using keyboard navigation. Now we’ve addressed a lot of the issues but are still in progress on others.

The Journey Continues

We’re not done addressing the known issues yet. We certainly have ideas for the next steps once we have finished completing the tasks from WebAIM’s review.

We won’t be checking a box saying that we’ve finished making our website accessible and that we are done with it now. Instead, we will continue to make sure that our website stays accessible as we add more content, design new features, and otherwise expand our online presence.

Based on the WebAIM review, we will create a list of best practices for adding new content to our website, which will include rules for color contrast, headline structure, and rules for creating alternative text. We will also apply lessons learned from this project to the websites of WCET’s divisions, the State Authorization Network, and Every Learner Everywhere. And we will work to apply the accessibility standards that we learned through the course of this project to other online tools that we use, such as wcetMIX.

And can we inspire you? It is certainly a gut check moment for you to assure your institution is meeting student accessibility needs. We understand that your web presence might be part of a bigger website, but (as we did) you can make a start and identify issues that are wider spread.

We have made the commitment to improve. Come join us. If you do, share your story with us!

Tags , , ,
Categories
Practice

Why Not Both?: It’s time to teach accessibly AND teach accessibility! 

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date April 27, 2023

This month WCET has focused on accessibility. As you may or may not know, we’ve been undertaking an accessibility review and revision of our entire website and document development practices. We held a WCET Webcast this month to feature the lessons we have learned during this process, which included WCET’s Manager of Digital Design, Rosa Calabrese, our Executive Director, Russ Poulin, and John Northup, the Director of Evaluations with WebAIM, which we have contracted with for our web review. You can watch the recording of the webcast to listen to the discussion and learn from our journey! We’ll continue this work moving forward, and I know our team is excited to continue to build upon this experience. In fact, stay tuned here at WCET Frontiers for a post from Rosa with more details on our website review journey. We will also be releasing additional resources around this topic soon and hosting a WCET Closer Conversation on Improving Access for All Learners.

As we round out the month, we’re thrilled to be joined today by Kate Sonka and Rolando Méndez from Teach Access to discuss the differences between teaching accessibly and teaching accessibility. Next month Teach Access will release a report about the gap in accessibility related skills in the workforce, and today Kate and Rolando share a preview of those results with us. I also really appreciate the ideas for including accessibility in student experiences. Thank you Kate and Rolando!

Enjoy the read and enjoy your day,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Let’s have an honest conversation

What did you learn about accessibility when you were in school? We are guessing that the answer is probably “nothing” or “very little.” Odds are if you are working in higher education, you have heard the term mentioned a few times. Although accessibility is a legal obligation, that alone should not be the main driver for us to know about it, care about it, or do something about it.

Textbox: "Accessibility is about removing barriers for people with disabilities and ensuring they have equitable access, interaction, and participation."

Accessibility is about removing barriers for people with disabilities and ensuring they have equitable access, interaction, and participation. As practitioners and leaders in education, we shouldn’t only be concerned about transferring our disciplinary knowledge and experiences to students, but also ensuring that they are equipped with the concepts and skills needed to be successful in their personal and professional lives. Teaching “accessibly” and teaching accessibility is part of that equation. 

Teaching “accessibly” 

Icons for CC captions, a screen with an arrow indicating press to play video, and an accessibility tools icon.

The discourse in higher education has mainly been focused on teaching “accessibly.” This involves making sure that our educational materials, technologies, activities, and courses are accessible to students with disabilities. Perhaps you have heard your favorite instructional designer tell you that you need to add captions to your videos, add alternate text to your images, and to start using descriptive hyperlinks. They might even point you to some helpful resources such as websites, apps, standards, and rubrics. Certainly, these practices and resources are very important components of teaching accessibly, but they are only part of what we could and should be doing.

The truth is that accessibility and teaching accessibly are not bound to technologies, checklists, or specific moments in time. They are continuous and collaborative processes that require a lot of learning and unlearning. Yes, the process can sometimes be uncomfortable as it requires us to reflect on – and in some cases, abandon – our frameworks, practices, and language. Hey, it also involves making mistakes and learning from them! But the bottom line is that through this process we become better educators and we help our students become better learners.   

The accessibility skills gap

Many institutions have been making great efforts to make teaching accessible. However, there is still much work to be done to ensure that students understand what accessibility is and how it informs their disciplines. A study conducted in 2017 by the Partnership on Employment and Accessible Technology (PEAT) revealed a gap in accessibility skills in the tech industry. Two figures from this study worth highlighting are that:

  • 63% of respondents said their current staff didn’t have the necessary accessibility skills.
  • 60% of respondents said it was difficult or very difficult” to find candidates with needed accessibility skills.

In fall 2022, Teach Access revised the study and distributed it to various industries to capture an understanding of the current state of accessibility skills within the workforce. Spoiler alert! Six years later the accessibility skills gap still exists. The full report and findings will be released in May, during 2023 Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD), but as a sneak peek some preliminary data from this study revealed that:

  • 52% of respondents said their current staff didn’t have the necessary accessibility skills.
  • 56% of respondents said it was difficult or very difficult” to find candidates with needed accessibility skills.

So, what can institutions do to make sure their students are equipped to enter the workforce with the skills they need? The answer is to teach accessibility. 

Teaching accessibility

the word "TEXT" written in light blue on a light background, in distorted typography. Highlighting the importance of using a font and color that is easy to read for everyone.

Teaching accessibility can take many forms. It can be as straightforward as introducing a lesson or activity on accessibility, accessible design, or disability in one of our courses. For example, in a graphic design course we could talk about accessible typographies, layouts, and color contrasts, or in a writing course we could teach our students about plain language and anti-ableist language.

If you are not sure how or where to start, we would recommend perusing the Teach Access Curriculum Repository, a free collection of open educational resources (OER) developed by faculty to support teaching accessibility to students. This repository contains a variety of teaching tools, including syllabi, slide decks, assignment prompts, discussion questions, and quizzes, among other resources. We would also recommend reaching out to people and organizations in the field of accessibility. As you will probably find out, this community is all about collaboration!

all letters from the alphabet in different shades of blue and grey and different typefaces and font size.

Teaching accessibility can start in your classroom, but consider the impact of integrating the teaching of accessibility into the curriculum and more widely across the institution. Some examples of next-level transformations we can make include:  

  • incorporating teaching accessibility and teaching accessibly across the curriculum,
  • creating an introductory course about disability awareness and accessibility, 
  • promoting accessibility as topic for research and creative projects,
  • including teaching, researching, and publishing about accessibility a requirement for faculty tenure and annual reviews, 
  • incorporating teaching accessibility and teaching accessibly in institutional policies and practices.

Lessons learned

Since Teach Access began in 2016, our work has focused on engaging students and faculty, through our different programs (Study Away, Career Development Series, and Faculty Grants). One of the most important lessons we have learned is that teaching accessibly and teaching accessibility require sustained, intentional, and scalable engagement and support. This is why we have been building our new programs around these principles.

For example, this semester we are piloting the Faculty Fellowship Program in partnership with California State University Northridge and College University of New York. Through this program, we are engaging faculty and staff from across disciplines and institutions in learning about accessibility and inclusiveness, as well as supporting them in the creation of course materials and activities and in the adoption of accessible pedagogical practices. In the Fall, we are planning to pilot two additional programs: the Student Ambassadors Program and the Faculty Pathways. The past couple of months we have been conversing with faculty and students across the country to learn more about their interests, needs, and preferences. These conversations have helped us assess the programs we have been offering, as well as shape the ones that we are building.  Hopefully, your efforts and ours will help ensure that the next time someone asks “What did you learn about accessibility when you were in school” question, the room will be full of raised hands. 

We are optimistic that this blog post will help spark the interest in some and fuel the passion in others, to push for significant changes in curriculum and pedagogy. These changes will help ensure that products, services, technologies, and events are born accessible. 

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Equity in a World of Artificial Intelligence

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date April 20, 2023

Since our last blog in January on generative artificial intelligence (AI), the field has changed by leaps and bounds:

The higher education press continues to increase its coverage with multiple articles, blogs, and op-ed pieces in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education among other outlets. Much of that coverage, though, continues to focus on the pedagogical implications of generative AI, including academic integrity concerns. Equally important, but discussed very little, are the equity considerations around how AI can and should be leveraged in higher education. Today we’ll look at both the positive and potentially negative aspects of generative AI in higher education as it relates to educational equity.

AI as a Tool for Equity

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology, “Technology can be a powerful tool for transformation learning. It can help affirm and advance relationships between educators and students, reinvent our approaches to learning and collaboration, shrink longstanding equity and accessibility gaps, and adapt learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners.” Artificial intelligence, when used deliberately and carefully, can advance equity by improving educational accessibility and assisting second language learners, among others.

Type writer with paper that reads "artificial intelligence"
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

AI can be especially powerful when addressing learner accessibility. For example, students with dyslexia can benefit from AI as a December 10, 2022, Washington Post article demonstrated when it described how ChatGPT is being used by a British landscaper with dyslexia to rewrite emails so that they are more professional and more easily understood. Additionally, students and faculty with AD/HD are finding generative AI useful in approaching research and writing. As Maggie Melo wrote in her February 28, 2023, op-ed in Inside Higher Education, “My thinking and writing processes are not linear. ChatGPT affords me a controlled chaos.” Melo goes on to describe how the need to create an abstract can feel overwhelming despite having having done so numerous times. However, after asking ChatGPT “How to write an abstract,” she received an outline that, as she put it, “provides my mind with an anchor to focus on and return to.” And much like our British landscaper, non-native English speakers may also benefit from ChatGPT’s ability to revise and rephrase text. ChatGPT can be used to revise text for grammatical correctness and clarity.

Challenges to AI as a Tool for Equity

Algorithmic bias and the “New Jim Code”

In her 2019 work, Race After Technology, Princeton University sociologist Ruha Benjamin wrote about what she calls the “New Jim Code” and the problem of data and algorithmic bias.

Benjamin defined the “New Jim Code” as “the employment of new technologies that reflect and reproduce existing inequities but that are promoted and perceived as more objective or progressive than the discriminatory systems of a previous era” (5). Generative AI is trained on large existing data sets, mostly scraped off the internet. This means that models are ingesting biased information as well as information that is likely to over-represent certain groups such as white, economically well-off individuals. As the old adage goes, “garbage in, garbage out.”

The result is algorithmic bias. Algorithmic bias “describes systematic and repeatable errors in a computer system that create unfair outcomes, such as privileging one arbitrary group of users over others. Also, occurs when an algorithm produces results that are systemically prejudiced due to erroneous assumptions in the machine learning process.” In addition to challenges with training data, algorithmic bias is also impacted by the implicit bias of generative AI developers, a field in which white men are over-represented and women and some racial groups such as Blacks and Latinos are under-represented. As Henry Kissenger, Eric Schmidt, and Daniel Huttenlocher wrote in Age of AI: And Our Human Future, “The algorithms, training data, and objectives for machine learning are determined by the people developing and training the AI, thus they reflect those people’s values, motivations, goals, and judgment” (77).

Student Access and the Expansion of the Digital Divide

In addition to challenges around algorithmic bias, AI also experiences challenges of access. According to the 2021 American Community Survey One Year Estimates, “Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions,” of the 127,544,730 households in the United States, 6,320,698 (4.9%) had no computing device including a smartphone and 12,374,652 (9.7%) had no internet subscription including no cellular data plan. This digital divide is especially acute for low-income Americans with 15.3 percent of Americans with income less than $75,000 lacking internet access. And a Pew Research Center 2021 study found that 15 percent of all American adults were smartphone only internet users but that number rose sharply to 28 percent when looking at 18-29 years old. Even then, that number is not equally divided among all racial groups. 25 percent of Hispanic young adults and 17% of Black young adults were smartphone only internet users as compared to 10 percent of White young adults.

Why does the digital divide matter when we explore equity and AI? Simply put, most generative AI is difficult to use without an internet connection. Although text based generative AI like ChaptGPT can run on mobile devices, its response time may be slower than one would experience when using a high-speed internet connection. Making more sophisticated queries with long outputs would be difficult, at best.

In addition to challenges resulting from the digital divide, there are challenges associated with the cost of using generative AI tools themselves. Chat GPT, which started out free, is now partially behind a paywall begging the question of how much longer these tools will remain freely available. In fact, the economic realities of the astronomical costs of running generative AI almost guarantees that such paywalls will become more common. CNBC reports that just training a large language model could be more than $4 million. Some estimates of daily cost to run it put it at $100,000 per day or $3,000,000 per month.

What will be the result of fewer students having access to generative AI? We run the risk of the digital divide turning into an AI divide. Some students who lack sufficient access will not gain the skills related to working with generative AI that will be increasingly necessary as we enter an age of hybrid human/AI work.

What Does this Mean for You?

Generative AI has the potential to revolutionize society, including higher education, in ways that we still are determining. But as higher education professionals, we need to be cognizant of how we leverage generative AI. How can you build upon the promise of generative AI while mitigating some of its challenges?

  • Explore the ways that generative AI can be leveraged to improve learner accessibility. This may mean working with various offices on campus including the office that handles student accommodations.
  • Be especially cognizant of the limitations that students may have accessing generative AI and plan accordingly. This might mean ensuring that there are adequate campus resources and, for face-to-face and hybrid courses, even consider focusing on AI usage during class via campus computer labs or in-classroom device loan programs.
  • Help students think critically about the results of generative AI, especially large language models trained on biased data sets. A key piece of data literacy in the age of artificial intelligence needs to be a discussion of algorithmic bias and the New Jim Code.
a person typing on a laptop computer
Photo by John Schnobrich on Unsplash

As we continue to explore the ways in which generative artificial intelligence can impact higher education, it is critical for us to remember that no technology is neutral.

As Kate Crawford in Atlas of AI puts it, “Artificial intelligence is not on objective, universal, or neutral computational technique that makes determinations without human direction. Its systems are embedded in social, political, cultural, and economic worlds, shaped by humans, institutions, and imperatives that determine what they do and how they do it” (211). Does this negate the potential advantages of generative AI and the ways that it can improve educational equity? No, but it does mean we should be cognizant of the potential for further educational inequity and work to counter that potential.

Tags , , ,
Categories
Practice

Thinking Strategically About Student Belonging in Online Learning

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date April 13, 2023

The feeling of belonging is, in my opinion and experience, a truly important factor for anyone’s success in an educational or even professional environment. The courses that I remember the most, the ones that I felt made the greatest impression upon me and my career, were those where I felt connected to my classmates and instructors, regardless of the modality. As our author today reminds us, developing a classroom sense of belonging can be an incredibly important element for a class, but it is especially for online courses.

Thank you to Katy Kappler, Co-Founder and CEO with InScribe, for today’s post considering the importance of student belonging for online courses and the suggestions for ways to enhance student belonging for online classes.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Creating a sense of belonging for students is uniquely challenging when it comes to online learning. We know that sense of belonging is a critical component of student success, and that when students feel disconnected or unsupported, they are more likely to disengage from their coursework or drop out. More than ever, educators need to think strategically about how to cultivate a sense of belonging in their online courses.

The significance of student belonging in the online learning experience can’t be understated. The lack of physical presence often limits opportunities for organic relationship building that are inherent in traditional higher education settings. Telling online students that they belong is not enough; institutions must proactively create opportunities for interactions that foster connections with peers, faculty, and the institution as a whole. In a recent dialogue with educational leaders, hosted by InScribe, we discussed their perspectives on student belonging and the measures their institutions are taking to promote it. In this article, we’ll share five strategic ways to enhance student belonging in online learning.

Enhancing Student Belonging in the Online Classroom

1 – Student belonging is not the result of predefined criteria, rather it’s a feeling unique to each individual.

Photo by Nick Morrison on Unsplash

There is no one-size-fits-all formula to create a sense of belonging among students that can meet the unique needs of each learner. According to Dr. Omid Fotuhi, Director of Learning Innovations at WGU Labs, “How we see ourselves and who we identify with is largely driven by the places we think we belong.” Dr. Fotuhi has done a great deal of research on the concept of belonging. “When we talk about belonging and how to foster it, there isn’t a checklist of things to do that will guarantee students will feel like they belong. It can’t be forced. It has to be genuine, and it has to be felt,” he says.

That said, giving students access to different environments and channels where they can form authentic relationships and engage at whatever level they feel most comfortable is a great first step in fostering a sense of belonging. These spaces allow students to have conversations, find common identities, and create connections, all of which can further fuel that feeling of personal connection.

2 – Student belonging is not a point-in-time event, rather it is constantly shifting and evolving.

Student support and motivation can be more relevant or felt more deeply at different points throughout the student experience. Dr. Andrew Feldstein, Assistant Provost for Teaching Innovation and Learning Technologies at Fort Hays State University says, “Belonging is not a one-dimensional concept. At Fort Hays, we focus on practical ways for students to connect. These different ways, or bridges, keep students engaged with us and the learning process.” For example, the University’s ‘Tiger-to-Tiger’ online student community empowers students to form connections and build relationships so they don’t experience loneliness or lose motivation at any point in their educational journey. Students themselves are empowered to be the leaders and caretakers of this ever-evolving virtual space, which strengthens their student engagement, connection, and emotional well-being.

3 – Insecurities are real and can have a big impact on student belonging.

How an institution helps students to feel a sense of belonging can take on various forms. At New Mexico Highlands University, leadership and faculty alike consider the institution’s different student populations, their backgrounds, and how they got to where they are. “So many of our students come to school with Imposter Syndrome; they feel like they don’t belong in class,” says Roxanne Gonzales, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs. “For our students to be successful, we have to acknowledge that a lot of them don’t even think they should be here, and we have to find a way to move forward with them individually,” she notes. There’s no simple formula for fostering that sense of belonging from the onset. Many of the University’s faculty now recognize how this notion of belonging can grow in the classroom and find ways to make individuals feel comfortable, whether it’s through the curriculum, learning communities, or other approaches.

4 – Faculty can increase a student’s sense of belonging.

Photo by Kampus Production from Pexels

Faculty are a great asset when it comes to fostering student belonging. Dr. Tawnya Means, Assistant Dean for Educational Innovations and Chief Learning Officer at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, describes how their faculty create opportunities for students to interact in different size spaces with different people and in different ways.

For example, some online classes offer small online breakout groups or divide the class in half for interactive lessons. This allows students to share with the larger class what they learned in their smaller groups, and it helps faculty get to know students and students get to know each other better than they can in a large face-to-face setting.

Additionally, Dr. Fotuhi encourages faculty to notice who isn’t participating, not just those who are. “It can be hard to identify those students who don’t feel like they belong because they don’t reach out or engage. Faculty need to look for these voids,” he says.

5 – It’s never too early to start thinking about student belonging.

While faculty and staff can be proactive in welcoming students, explaining mutual expectations, and helping create confidence, there are opportunities to be deliberate about fostering belonging before students even begin classes. Dr. Means says, “That feeling of belonging can be influenced long before a student comes into a situation. As instructors and designers, we should be doing things that identify where there are gaps or where students might feel like outsiders, and specifically address those concerns.” Dr. Means also believes that the intentional design of an online learning space can help increase feelings of belonging. “In a face-to-face class, we rely on proximity to each other to feel a sense of belonging. In an online space, we need to look to immediacy. Students need to know that if they reach out, someone will respond, and they will respond quickly.” In the early stages of the course creation process, faculty and designers should be thinking about interactivity, logistics, and timeliness for posts and responses.

Fostering Student Belonging is Everyone’s Responsibility

Feeling isolated is a daunting experience for students, whereas feeling included and valued is reassuring. Providing students with tools and channels to connect, find common ground, and support one another can serve as the motivation they need to remain engaged and persist in their studies.

Fostering a sense of belonging in students involves multiple stakeholders, and no single person or department can take sole responsibility for it. Institutional leadership, staff, faculty, and even students themselves can contribute in various ways to promote a sense of belonging. It is a collective responsibility, and a significant one, particularly as the scope and scale of online learning continues to expand.

Tags , ,
Categories
Practice

Increasing Access to Learning by Creating a Custom Online Lab Platform

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date April 6, 2023

A few weeks ago we started our feature of recent WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award winners. Today we continue that feature with one of our WOW Honorable Mentions – Oregon State University Ecampus and their outstanding work developing a custom online lab platform. Thank you to Karen Watté, the Director of Course Development & Training with Ecampus for sharing about the platform and the team’s design journey!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

For years higher education has grappled with the question – how do you teach labs online? For many faculty this has felt like an insurmountable hurdle. However, the Oregon State University Ecampus course development team was able to bound over this hurdle for chemistry courses taught online through a multi-year collaborative effort with Oregon State’s Department of Chemistry. The result was the development of a robust online chemistry lab platform that is now used in 10 online chemistry courses serving approximately 1500 students annually.

The Makeup of an Online Lab

Screen shot of the online lab workbench

Our online chemistry lab consists of both a digital workbench and notebook. It is designed in many ways to replicate what one would see in a physical lab. For example, the balance uses a variable weight scale tare function and students are required to actually close the balance door prior to recording an accurate measurement. They are also required to swap pipette tips between drawing and dispensing solutions. This level of detail creates an extremely realistic virtual experience. The user-friendly design means that the technology disappears into the background and learning takes center stage.

Screen shot of the online lab notebook and workbench

Labs conducted through this platform meet the same learning outcomes as required for on-campus labs and students leave the online courses well-prepared for future coursework and lab experiences. At the time of its launch, the online lab platform actually covered a wider range of experimentation and data analysis than the on-campus lab experience, according to Mike Lerner, previous chemistry department head. The platform was designed to be scalable, so new labs can be added and existing labs can be revised. This ability to respond quickly to changing needs provides a significant advantage over out-of-the-box solutions.

Our Custom Design Journey

The journey that ended with this complex simulation began with a number of key decisions, the most important of which was whether this was a project that we could, and wanted to, develop in-house. Previous experience with an external vendor had resulted in a product that wasn’t as flexible as hoped. Reliance on an outside vendor also brings business continuity risk as ownership and support for a product can shift over time. Our Ecampus team had programming capacity and expertise, but we also considered a number of other factors before deciding to develop this platform internally.

Critical questions before starting a custom media project

Based on our experience, here are some critical questions that you might consider before tackling a large, custom media project like this one.

  1. Do you have strong faculty partners who are able to invest time and energy into clearly articulating their requirements and providing feedback and testing along the way?
  2. Are the learning outcomes to be achieved by this project well-defined?
  3. Do you have a programmer(s) available to support the work over the period of time required? This might mean hiring additional staff or being prepared to place other projects on hold during the course of the development.
  4. Have you provided for redundancy? For example, in a long-term project like this do you have at least two programmers who are well-versed in the design and programming of the project to ensure continuity through unexpected events?
  5. Are the programmer(s) and the faculty sponsor(s) willing and able to take the conversation ‘into the weeds’ when needed to ensure that all details are clearly scoped? The more details and alternative paths for learners that can be mapped out in advance, the more opportunity to provide a robust and realistic end product.
  6. Do you have an individual who can serve as a project manager? For complex media projects a project manager serves an important role in ensuring that the requirements are well-defined, the project moves forward in a timely way, and the many stakeholders involved are kept up-to-date.
  7. How do you anticipate maintaining the project once it has launched? Every custom media project requires at least some time allocated for maintenance or troubleshooting work. This becomes even more critical as the number of students who rely on the tool increase.

Four advantages gained from custom lab development

What are some of the advantages that we’ve realized at Oregon State as a result of creating a custom lab platform? Here are a few:

textbox: This tool has allowed Oregon State to reduce student learning barriers and provided a more equitable approach to learning chemistry.

Flexibility – A custom lab platform provides ultimate flexibility for faculty since they are able to request changes without having to enter into negotiations with an external vendor.

Accessibility – For students who need certain accommodations to work in a physical lab, an online lab can often meet this need. From another perspective, students who would otherwise be unable to attend an in-person lab (i.e. active duty military) have the opportunity to complete the course of study.

Cost savings – Physical space is not only costly but often at a premium at most institutions. Being able to support a certain percentage of lab-work online means that physical labs on campus can be used for highly specialized or upper-division coursework.

Security – An in-house platform takes advantage of the security infrastructure and policies within the institution which helps ensure that student data remains secure.

The primary benefit: Increased access to learning

The development of an online chemistry lab platform was a significant undertaking involving two full-time programmers, a project manager and part-time graphic design support over the course of two years. The results, however, have been extremely positive.

As a land grant institution, access is a high priority and part of our mission. The virtual lab platform has improved access to our undergraduate chemistry courses, and it offers even more value to students because it’s free. Students don’t pay any lab or licensing fees.

This tool has allowed Oregon State to reduce student learning barriers and provided a more equitable approach to learning chemistry.

Tags , , , , , ,