Author: Lindsey Downs

Policy

Regular and Substantive Interaction: Resources to Support Learning, Neuroplasticity, and Regulations

By Lindsey Downs

March 2, 2023

Today’s blog explores Regular and Substantive Interaction through a learning science-based approach to course design and instruction. Thank you to Kristen Betts, Clinical Professor at Drexel University, and Karyn Holt, Vice President of Institutional Partnerships & Research at INTERACT123, for the resources and innovative way to consider the learning process, especially regulations regarding that process, and how we can ensure the best learning opportunities for our students.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Learning and Neuroplasticity

Educators are brain changers. Research in neuroscience and advancements in technology provide critical insight about the brain and learning. According to Dr. Lara Boyd (2015),a neuroscientist and physical therapist at the University of British Columbia, “Every time you learn a new fact or skill, you change your brain. It is something we call neuroplasticity.”

Neuroplasticity is the ability of the brain to change and adapt in structure and function throughout the lifespan in response to experience and the environment in which one interacts (Boutzoukas & Woods, 2022; CAST, 2018; Costandi, 2016; Cunnington, 2019). The brain is a highly complex and dynamic organ that receives, processes, and interprets information. With approximately 100 billion neurons and over 100 trillion synaptic connections, “there are more neurons in a single human brain than stars in the milky way!” (Colón-Ramos Lab, 2023).

Educators do not need to become experts in neuroscience. However, having foundational knowledge about the brain can expand the understanding of the human learning process and assist in debunking myths such as individuals using only 10% of the brain or being either left- or right-brained, which may negatively impact learning and mindsets. Research indicates that an educator’s knowledge and epistemological beliefs are influential variables that can affect pedagogical practice (Gholami et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2013; Mataka et al., 2019). Therefore, increasing awareness and understanding about the brain and neuroplasticity can provide new insights for designing, teaching, and assessing courses. It can also support aligning practices to meet student learning outcomes and federal regulations.

Regulations: Final Rules on Distance Education and Innovation

The Final Rules on Distance Education and Innovation, issued by the U.S. Department of Education, went into effect on July 1, 2021. These regulations included a new definition of academic engagement. Additionally, the definition of distance education, which is used in determining financial aid eligibility for higher education institutions, was updated with “regular and substantive interaction” being a key differential between “distance education” and “correspondence education” (Kerensky, 2021; Federal Student Aid, 2021; Office of Postsecondary Education, 2020). The concept of regular and substantive interaction is not new to higher education nor is the discussion on the differences between distance education and correspondence education. WCET has cited regular and substantive interaction as one of the “Top WCET Frontiers Blog Posts” since 2020 (Raymond, 2021; Downs, 2020; Davis & Poulin, 2016). Furthermore, WCET brought national attention to the practical and philosophical considerations of correspondence definitions in an April 2012 blog on “Is Your Distance Education Course Actually a Correspondence Course?” (Poulin, 2012). Since the release of the regulations, WCET, Online Learning Consortium, Quality Matters, and UPCEA have been at the forefront of providing updates and clarity on the definitions.

“Regular” and “Substantive” Interaction

Distance education is defined by the U.S. Department of Education at the course level, which makes both course design and instruction of great importance.

It is recommended that educators carefully compare the prior and updated definitions for distance education since key terms, including instructor, substantive, and regular, were previously not defined as shared in the “Distance Education and Institutional Eligibility Webinar” on April 26, 2021 (Musser & Martin, 2021).

Prior Definition

Distance Education means: Education that uses one or more of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor, either synchronously or asynchronously. The technologies may include:

(1) the internet;
(2) one-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;
(3) audioconferencing; or
(4) video cassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs, if the cassettes, DVDs, or CD-ROMs are used in a course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1) through (3).

Updated Definition

Distance education: (1) Education that uses one or more of the technologies listed in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this definition to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor or instructors and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor or instructors, either synchronously or asynchronously.

(2)The technologies that may be used to offer distance education include –
(i) The internet;
(ii) One-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;
(iii) Audio conference; or
(iv) Other media used in a course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iii) of this definition.

(3) For purposes of this definition, an instructor is an individual responsible for delivering course content and who meets the qualifications for instruction established by an institution’s accrediting agency.

(4) For purposes of this definition, substantive interaction is engaging students in teaching, learning, and assessment, consistent with the content under discussion, and also includes at least two of the following –
(i) Providing direct instruction;
(ii) Assessing or providing feedback on a student’s coursework;
(iii) Providing information or responding to questions about the content of a course or competency;
(iv) Facilitating a group discussion regarding the content of a course or competency; or
(v) Other instructional activities approved by the institution’s or program’s accrediting agency.

(5) An institution ensures regular interaction between a student and an instructor or instructors by, prior to the student’s completion of a course or competency –
(i) Providing the opportunity for substantive interactions with the student on a predictable and scheduled basis commensurate with the length of time and the amount of content in the course or competency; and
(ii) Monitoring the student’s academic engagement and success and ensuring that an instructor is responsible for promptly and proactively engaging in substantive interaction with the student when needed on the basis of such monitoring, or upon request by the student.

The updated definition brings increased focus on the significant role of the instructor in delivering distance education course content with greater elaboration on both regular and substantive interaction.

Regular and Substantive Interaction and Alignment

Regular and substantive interaction, referred to as RSI, should not be seen as an incumbrance or be the last section of a course review checklist. Understanding “what is and what is not considered to be RSI” is critical to course design and instruction (Mesa Community College; University of Houston; University of Wisconsin-Madison).

RSI aligns with evidence-based practices that build upon the neuroscience of learning. Understanding the brain is not a muscle but a dynamic network of interconnected neurons, is important for all educators. According to Fields (2021), “The connecting points between neurons, called synapses, are where learning is thought to occur. Learning and memory require the coupling of information from many different brain regions. This activity alters the physical structure of myelin, the insulating material surrounding the wiring that connects neurons. Myelin, it turns out, plays a key role in learning by adjusting the speed of information” (p. 74). Hence, it is not “muscle memory” that educators should be focused on but the integration of activities, experiences, and feedback into distance education courses that support engagement and effective practice to promote myelination.

The integration of RSI into course design and delivery not only supports alignment with regulations but also supports alignment with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and inclusive teaching practices. Each student enrolled in a distance education course is truly unique. According to CAST (2018), “Like fingerprints, no two brains are alike. Each brain is a complex, interconnected web that is sculpted and influenced by genetics and interactions with the environment” (p. 1). Substantive interaction supports engaging students in teaching, learning, and assessment. Understanding that “UDL is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn,” (CAST, n.d.) provides a strong foundation to support learner variability through multiple means of engagement (the “why” of learning; affective networks), representation (“what” of learning; recognition networks), and action and expression (“how” of learning; strategic networks).

Inclusive teaching practices can be integrated into distance education courses to support substantive interaction.

It is through participation in regularly scheduled live sessions, personalized comments on assignments, facilitated group discussions, and regularly set office hours that students can engage in practice, metacognition, and transfer of learning.

To ensure that courses reflect a diverse society and world, the Association of College and University Educators (2022) shares, “Be intentional when selecting your multimedia (images, videos, blogs), required readings, and illustrative examples so that your course site and curriculum reflect diverse people, voices, and viewpoints” (para. 3). As educators look for content to support discussions, live sessions, and assignments, choosing content that reflects the diverse world in which we live can support an inclusive learning environment that fosters belonging, engagement, and deeper learning.

Finally, regular and substantive interaction must be predictable and scheduled with opportunities for direct interaction with students. Furthermore, the instructor is responsible for promptly and proactively engaging in substantive interaction with students. This is particularly important with feedback on assignments and facilitating discussions. As shared by CAST (2018), “Frequent, formative feedback and opportunities for active learning create and strengthen the connections within our learning brains” (p. 2). It is through participation in regularly scheduled live sessions, personalized comments on assignments, facilitated group discussions, and regularly set office hours that students can engage in practice, metacognition, and transfer of learning. It is important to remember as brain changers that “Every lesson, assignment, and interaction shapes your students’ brains” (McTighe & Willis, 2019, p. 3).

Resources to Support Learning, Neuroplasticity & Regulations

Here are four resources that have additional support and information on learning, neuroplasticity, and regulations:

WCET

WCET (WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies) is an eminent leader in the practice, policy, and advocacy of digital learning in higher education. WCET provides the latest research and updates on policies and regulations related to distance education and Regular and Substantive Interaction. WCET’s Frontiers Blog provides critical insight on current and emerging issues. WCET continues to lead the national discussion on the Final Rules on Distance Education and Innovation. WCET’s conferences and webcasts, including speakers and panels, focus on topics that support faculty and student success.

Online Learning Consortium

The Online Learning Consortium (OLC) is a pioneering organization that continues to advance online learning. OLC brings together innovators, leaders, faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and trainers as well as educational institutions, professional societies, and corporate enterprises as part of a dynamic higher education community. OLC offers workshops, webinars, mastery series, and certificate programs to support professional development. The Neuro, Cognitive & Learning Sciences (NCLS) series includes four workshops: Part 1: Bringing Theory to Practice; Part 2: Applying Theory to Practice; Regular & Substantive Interaction, Policy & Practice; and Instructional Design. All of the NCLS workshops support learning, neuroplasticity, and regulations. The Nursing Mastery Series also integrates content related to neuroscience of learning, regulations, and alignment with accreditation.

OSCQR – SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric

The OSCQR SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric was developed in collaboration with campuses throughout the SUNY system to address the instructional design and accessibility of an online course. The OSCQR rubric supports continuous improvements to the quality and accessibility of online courses. The SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric website provides access to the OSCQR rubric, detailed updates on Regular and Substantive Interaction, and resources related to OSCQR research.

INTERACT123™

INTERACT123 provides extensive resources and a learning science-based application for instructional designers and instructors to support CLEAR Course Design: Credit Hour, Licensure, Engagement, Accreditation, and Regular & Substantive Interaction. The Regular & Substantive Interaction (RSI) One-Stop includes the latest updates, guidelines, checklists, and rubrics to support alignment with the regulations. INTERACT123 resources include key topics on the brain and learning, assessment and cognitive load, and more. INTERACT123 has an interactive Myths & Facts Self-Assessment that allows you to check your awareness of key topics related the brain, teaching, and learning. Current insights on educational topics are provided through the INTERACT123 Monograph Series and Research Round-up. Powered by AWS, INTERACT123 enables higher education institutions to balance content, workload, and cognitive load to support student success.

Distance Education, Online Learning, Regular and Substantive Interaction, Regulation, Student Success

Policy Practice

Where’s the Beef? Having Fun Teaching and Ensuring Regular and Substantive Interaction

By Lindsey Downs

February 28, 2023

I know, I know, many of you are questioning the title of today’s post … “having fun?” plus “regular and substantive interaction” … what? But, as our authors will show you, it’s totally possible. And a great idea, for your students and entire institution. I’m so excited to introduce Sara Nafzgar and Carrie Patterson, both of Moreno Valley College, who join us today to highlight MVC’s perfect storm created by the COVID-19 pandemic colliding with the need to resolve compliance issues. Not only did they address the issues, but their entire digital learning culture shifted and, as you’ll see, they had fun doing it! Thank you to Sara and Carrie for this excellent post.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Textbox: RSI is not just about compliance.

While everyone working in education had to weather the changes pummeled upon us in order to adapt to the impacts of COVID-19, Moreno Valley College (MVC) experienced (what we believe) a perfect storm. In addition to addressing the challenges of the quick shift to remote learning, during the summer of 2020, MVC was tasked with resolving a compliance issue concerning regular and substantive instructor-initiated interaction (RSI).

Amid globally turbulent times, in fewer than 18 months, administrators and faculty united as we shifted the culture by re-envisioning our distance education practices. The catchy campaigns and lessons learned by MVC can be helpful for any institution working to enhance its online education practices and ensure that courses align with federal standards.

Chain of Events

Remember the perfect storm mentioned above? Well, here are the events that colluded to create such a quagmire. Remember, COVID-19 was reaching pandemic proportions in a similar timeframe.

2/11/20: World Health Organization (WHO) announces the official name for the Coronavirus outbreak “COVID-19.”
3/5/20: The accreditation team site visit concluded.
3/11/20: WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic.
3/13/20: The United States declares a nationwide emergency due to COVID-19.
3/15/20: States begin to implement shutdowns to prevent the spread of the disease.
3/16/20: All MVC classes switched to emergency remote instruction for an unknown time period.
6/29/20: MVC received an Action Letter from the ACCJC requiring the college to demonstrate compliance with Standard II.A.7 (RSI).
10/1/20: The U.S. Department of Education issued new rules on Distance Education that changed definitions related to RSI. Uh oh…Plot twist.
2021: Initially, there might have been a slight moment of panic when we learned about the new federal definitions. However, we quickly embraced the opportunity to invoke a college-wide cultural shift. We went to work analyzing the old federal standards for RSI and compared them to the new definitions. We identified how we could use the new guidelines to provide clarity and introduce methods to ensure courses meet federal standards.
- Significant resources were invested to educate faculty and ensure compliance, as almost all MVC courses continued online through Spring 2021. The necessity to continue with remote instruction meant that more than 300 (offsite) faculty needed to be fully trained (online), and all courses could potentially be selected for review in the follow-up evaluation.
- Our Follow Up Report details how MVC adopted a 3-prong approach that started with evaluating the understanding and needs of faculty, then educating them on multiple facets of high-quality online education in an online community of practice called the DE Den, and finally, setting up multiple systems to regularly evaluate and ensure alignment. The approaches we took were so widely accepted that 96% of faculty voluntarily enrolled in the DE Den.
1/27/22: MVC was fully reaccredited. The college has been widely praised for the work that was done and the results that were achieved.
(CDC COVID Timeline, accessed 2023).

The timeline hints at some of the challenges experienced, but the best parts of our story are the methods used, and lessons learned that were critical to our success.

What’s the beef? The big juicy parts of a course!

textbox: Compliance mattered to faculty, but pride in their courses and a student-centered focus mattered even more.

RSI is not just about compliance. Admittedly, one reason faculty were so willing to participate in the improvement efforts was the looming follow up visit. Nobody wanted to be the reason that our college was not reaccredited. While this was a powerful motivator, even more persuasive was showing how RSI improves instruction and benefits both students and instructors. When the benefits of RSI were presented in entertaining and actionable ways, faculty were eager to engage. Compliance mattered to faculty, but pride in their courses and a student-centered focus mattered even more. In fact, once faculty fully understood the five forms of RSI, and that satisfying two of the five qualified as meeting the standard, most were not content with only meeting the basic requirement. They wanted to create high-quality courses that exceeded the standard.

In our review of over a hundred courses, we identified two potentially problematic patterns:

First: Some faculty were creating courses with a great deal of content, and they required students to do a great deal of work, yet, their courses would likely not meet the standard if they were selected for review. Their presence in the course was hard to find.

We used Wendy’s 1984 “Where’s the Beef” commercial as an analogy, explaining that the little old ladies are like our students and the course reviewers who want to find the beef, but sometimes we have developed our courses to be so bun-heavy that it can be difficult to locate. Additional training was titled “Beef or Bun.” This focused on distinguishing what was “beef,” and should be considered RSI by a reviewer, and what was “bun,” which would likely not be considered RSI. We defined bun as valued-added content that might be relevant and beneficial to a course but is not one of the five forms of RSI.

Three elderly individuals looking at a burger. One is holding a bun and has the text "There's a lot of fluff!" above her head. The middle lady is looking at the burger saying "Where's the RSI?" and the third says "WHERE THE BEEF????"

Second: We noticed that sometimes faculty were close to achieving RSI, and areas of their courses just needed some “beefing up.” To support faculty in fulfilling RSI requirements, we provided examples from our faculty to show what would and would not meet each form of RSI according to our guidelines. Discipline-specific examples from peers were powerful, and examples were not easy to find online.

*Click to check out the slides from the training session!*

We noticed that these two patterns could create confusion for students and reviews, so in addition to defining RSI, we taught a “Say this, not that” approach using clear language from the federal regulations. We called these “breadcrumbs” that made it simple to navigate a course, and also made RSI easy to spot and identify. Faculty were encouraged to include a communication plan on their homepages and in their welcome letters so that students would know what to expect regarding communication in the course.

As faculty found that RSI resulted in better student work and fewer student questions, they were hooked. Instead of asking “Where’s the beef?” during course reviews, the new slogan became “There’s the beef!”

We encourage you to find your own nomenclature to discuss RSI that makes it fun and reduces judgment when finding deficiencies, or feel free to borrow our Beef or Bun references.

Thank you Perfect Storm!

So, what did the perfect storm teach us? Here are the three essential lessons we learned:

1. We can’t comply with what we don’t understand.

It is important that faculty both understand the requirements and know definitively whether they are meeting them. We widely distributed the district-wide guidelines to clarify the Department of Education definitions, and MVC developed supplementary resources. Another way that we simplified the intimidating topic was to conduct trainings titled “Just Tell Me What to Do” that focused on how to meet the standard at the most basic level.

The training taught the five forms of RSI and demonstrated how faculty could easily and consistently include two forms of RSI in their courses.

Before a semester starts, faculty can pre-build RSI in announcements, overview pages, instructional materials, etc.
Personalized feedback, discussion facilitation, and other approved activities can be added throughout the course while it is in progress to exceed the standard and improve the experience for all.
We provided pre-built customizable content (i.e., welcome letters, communication plans, campus support services, anonymous surveys, etc.) that aided with the intentional and timely outreach to help students succeed. These interactions are like the cherry on top of a sundae or the bacon on top of a burger.

2. Varied Support is Key.

MVC and the Riverside Community College District (RCCD) provided deep financial and technical support that included instructional designers and a financial commitment to develop sustainable practices. The support of the institution and the expertise provided is critical to a strong Distance Education program. In addition to traditional DE outreach methods, a peer-to-peer support model that allowed faculty to assist faculty was well received.

We empowered a small team of faculty leaders to create a Canvas shell (we nicknamed it the DE Den) that became a vibrant space containing curated and created resources and synchronous and asynchronous trainings. In addition to providing resources, the DE Den became a place of community and a way to model RSI through the modules, announcements, meetings, etc. For many faculty who had never taken an online course, and now were expected to teach one, the DE Den was the experiential learning they needed.

Additionally, each faculty member was assigned a faculty “Sidekick” as their go-to person for support. The Sidekicks were marketed as peers who were not experts, but rather individuals who had distance education experience and enjoyed helping others find solutions. That lack of formal expertise greatly reduced the anxiety that is often coupled with needing technical assistance and opening a course for others to see. The Sidekicks received a special projects stipend in exchange for their fun, friendly, ongoing, intentional outreach, and that additional level of support was undoubtedly a key to our success.

3. The standard is to educate AND ensure.

Your institution might have strong training on RSI, but be prepared to answer the question, “How do you ensure your faculty are achieving it?” This is, perhaps, the most important lesson we learned.

Image from the RSI training. Text says "Got two? I do! RSI check: 1. direct instruction, 2 assessment/feedback, 3 information/response to questions, 4. group discussion facilitation, 5 other approved instructional activities.

To distinguish online education from correspondence education, institutions are required to ensure that interaction occurs. We provided a voluntary tool called the RSI Tracker Table that gave instructors a way to plan for and reflect upon the regular and substantive interactions in their courses. We launched a one-month campaign called “Got 2? I do!” and over one-third of all faculty voluntarily opened their courses for an RSI Check to validate their courses had monitoring and outreach, predictable patterns, and at least two regularly occurring types of substantive interactions. The transparent and frequent collaboration with Academic Senate, Faculty Association, and the Distance Education Committee led to the widely embraced annual random RSI Check policy that mimics the process used by accreditation visiting teams. When trust is established, and responsive support is available, faculty take ownership and everyone benefits.

Distance education requires a commitment to ongoing, continuous improvement, and this is not the last storm we will endure as educators. Thankfully, there are roadmaps that can act as a compass for those with work to do to teach and ensure RSI.

Beef or Bun?

Extra or Basic?

Hot or Not?

Call RSI whatever you like, but just make sure your courses have it. Beyond meeting a federal requirement for accreditation, our students deserve to have their instructor’s regular and substantive interactions throughout online courses. Because all bun is no fun!

COVID-19, Distance Education, Faculty, Professional Development, Regular and Substantive Interaction

Practice

Don’t Let the Urgency Fool You! – Cybersecurity Introduction Part III

By Lindsey Downs

February 9, 2023

I’ve written a couple blog posts already introducing different aspects of cybersecurity, including a general introduction to the topic and a description of common password issues. Today I want to talk to you about a certain kind of cybersecurity threat called ‘social engineering.’ Although the word ‘hacking’ often evokes an image of complicated technological systems, the truth is that many hacks originate with the manipulation of humans, not their devices.

Social Engineering

Social engineering is broadly described as a way of using psychological tools to manipulate users into doing things that they would not choose to do on their own, such as making them give away their credentials or download something that they do not actually want (and which often turns out to be malware). One of the most common examples of social engineering is phishing, which most people have heard of, or have experienced for themselves by now. Other examples of social engineering include things like scareware, access tailgating, and baiting. I’ll cover some examples more below.

Even before I started my master’s degree studying this topic, I’ve always felt the cyber-insecurity of protecting myself against all threats, given the immensely complicated technological systems out there. And since starting the program, I still often feel like there is far too much pressure upon the individual to protect themself against external threats. And although I love the internet – didn’t Netflix make the early days of the pandemic less agonizingly dull?! – I also have some degree of envy for generations past that did not have to deal with the never-ending battle of trying to protect themselves online. These threats are real, and whether or not we understand technology and the tools we use every day, the truth is many security threats come down to human issues rather than technological ones.

In the following paragraphs, I will describe some commons social engineering threats. I also want to convey some of the ways that users can manage these threats to defend themselves and their workplaces.

Online, In-Person, Over the Phone

There are many types of social engineering attacks. Many of these take place on the computer, such as email phishing attacks, but social engineering can also take place elsewhere, such as over the phone or even in person. Here are some common examples:

Photo of a person using a keycard to gain entry into a secure building.

Email phishing – when a fake email is designed to look like it comes from a legitimate organization and asks you to engage in some way. Phishing attempts are often sent to many people with generic presets. There is minimal effort on behalf of the “social engineer,” whose goal is to find occasional success because they have contacted a high number of people.
Spear phishing – similar to regular email phishing but is instead sent to a small group of people or single person, and the message is tailored specifically to them. More effort required on the part of the social engineer, but with greater potential for payout.
Smishing – phishing over SMS text messages.
Tech support scams – infected websites popup information telling you that your computer is infected with malware and that you can get help by contacting a certain number or clicking a link where they will help you, but ultimately, they ask for money for the ‘fix.’
Trojan – items that are pretending to be something that they are not. For example, an innocent-seeming email attachment that actually downloads malware to a user’s computer, which will allow easy entry for hackers to access the device.
Scareware – pop-ups or email that are designed to scare you into taking fast action against a threat. If you are anxious about potential threats, you may be less likely to verify whether the message you see is true. Scareware might come in the form of a message telling you that you have a virus and you must act now (“Click this link”) to protect yourself.
Pretexting – a type of social engineering which might be used in conjunction with other methods, such as phishing. Pretexting uses legitimate information about the victim to form a legitimate-seeming call to action. If the hacker knows the bank you use or knows that you have student loans or knows which health insurance you use, they can use that information to try to contact you with a more believable story to try to get you to engage.
Access tailgating – a live and in-person version of social engineering where a person trying to gain entry to a building that requires keycard access may try to slip in behind someone else entering the building. The threat actor may say they have forgotten their keycard and ask to be let in, or alternatively they may have their hands full and ask someone nearby to get the door for them.

Social engineering attacks are based on an understanding of human psychology, and social engineers prey on human weaknesses. By identifying and exploiting human vulnerabilities, hackers can find an easily accessible opening into anything from your bank account to your workplace file server.

An All Too Common Scenario

Let’s imagine you receive an automated email that appears to come from your campus IT department. The “From” line in the email says it is from the IT department, but the sender’s email address appears slightly off from what you’ve seen before. The email says that you must click a link to reset some credentials immediately, or risk getting locked out of your account. It’s late on a Friday afternoon and you know you have more work to finish over the weekend, so while you’re not sure if any humans are still available to help you if you get locked out, you know that you need to maintain access to your accounts, so you go ahead and click the link to make sure that you can retain access.

graphic of a paper with "username" and "password" fields held up by a metal fishing hook.

You may not immediately realize that you’ve given away your credentials to a suspicious site that was designed to look like your actual campus IT webpage. Nonetheless, the hacker was able to gather your username and password when you typed them into the fake system. And now they will be able to use those credentials in the future until you’ve changed them (once you do notice, you should notify your IT department immediately and follow their recommendations, which will likely include changing your credentials to that account, and maybe to others).

This might seem like an obvious example. If you noticed that the email was sent from an address that looked incorrect, you are probably not likely to click on it. However, we all receive hundreds of emails per day, so if you’re not looking closely at the sender email on each message, that would be understandable. Additionally, while some phishing emails have some very obvious signs that they are fake, such as spelling errors including errors in the name of the person they are impersonating, some phishing emails are very clean and believable. What’s more, the fact that many of us do receive legitimate emails telling us to reset our passwords or to update our contact information muddies the waters because we must personally separate the real from the fake.

What to Do, What to Do?

So, when (not if!) you receive a message such as the one in our story above, that instructs you to take action in some way, try to investigate the request with available information before acting. It’s a good rule of thumb to avoid clicking on links or opening attachments from suspicious looking messages even if you are not positive that they are in fact suspicious. Get in the habit of doing a bit of investigation before reacting to strange emails. For example, if someone has emailed to tell you to reset your bank, work, or student (etc.) account, try going directly to the login page yourself rather than clicking on their link. In that case, you might change your credentials without needing to and waste a few minutes doing so, but you won’t have given your account access to a hacker. It is also a best practice to directly email the person you think has written to you – not just replying to the email you have now, but instead writing a new email to the address from which you have communicated with them in the past.

Be Suspicious – But Not Too Suspicious

Unfortunately, much of playing it safe online involves being suspicious of possible attacks. We tell children that they should not talk to strangers because of concerns around “stranger danger.” We should interact with people over the internet with a similar skepticism around the other persons’ intentions, not just related to issues like stalking or catfishing, but related to the risks of malware or fraud – in the workplace and in our personal lives.

However, figuring out ways to defend yourself against social engineering can be a double-edged sword. While it is important to be skeptical of those around you – both physically around you (like in the case of access tailgating) or over the internet – it’s also important to understand how this skepticism can be unnecessarily damaging to others. Security and policing threaten different groups unequally, and cybersecurity is no different. People of color are overpoliced everywhere, including on college campuses. Students and faculty who have the right to occupy a space they are in are routinely questioned unreasonably and often asked to leave buildings that they should have access to. It is important to understand the context of your situation – just because you haven’t seen someone in your building before does not mean they aren’t supposed to be there. The risks of over policing our colleagues of color could be just as, if not even more, damaging than the risks of a stranger accessing your office. To avoid interrogating your colleagues about whether they should have access to certain spaces, perhaps consider adding extra protection to materials that you want to keep secure. If your office contains a lot of sensitive information or expensive equipment, you may consider adding additional locks to store the files or tools.

To close our post today, I have one final piece of advice: be careful about how much personal data you reveal online. Although it is easy to think “well, all my personal data is already out there somewhere so why should I protect myself now?,” that’s a pretty dangerous way of thinking. It’s true that Google and other massive tech companies likely have a lot of my information. However, that does not mean that that all my data is easily accessible to hackers. Posting too many details about yourself and your accounts on social media could make your information into low hanging fruit for hackers to access. Or could help them piece together a greater scheme.

A graphic showing different descriptions of desserts and dessert flavors based on the birth date, middle initial, and birth month of the reader. For example, birth date of 27, middle initial of R, and birth month of April, would mean that you should make a Buttery Caramel Pudding for Valentines Day.

Just for fun, and in honor of the holiday, I’ve made a quirky graphic to tell you what kind of delicious (or weird) dessert you should make for Valentine’s Day. All you need to do is note down your birth date, birth month, and middle initial. Make sure to post in the comments, so we can all share in the fun! Harmless, right?

Probably. But there is some risk.

These types of graphics make the rounds on social media periodically and everyone answers in the comments with their own amusing results. But it’s important to understand that this type of activity, innocent as it seems, could be used to collect basic information about you to be used later in a hack. Consider your passwords or answers to security questions, some of which may resemble the formula for your new favorite treat. It’s probably harmless, but I think it’s best to minimize the risk. Don’t make the jobs of hackers any easier! At the very least, they should have to put in the work to hack your accounts.

Now go forth into the world. Be careful what you reveal online, be suspicious of strange communications, pause before you react to make sure you understand the truth of the situation, and please, don’t make Cold Tangy Pancakes or Flaky Pumpkin Spice Milkshakes for yourself or anyone else next week.

Cybersecurity, Managing Digital Learning, Technology

Practice

Put Down the Shiny Object: The Overwhelming State of Higher Education Technology

By Lindsey Downs

February 2, 2023

At this year’s WCET Annual Meeting, Brandon Karcher, the Manager of Instructional Technology at Bucknell University, facilitated an unconference session titled “Higher Ed Technology: Innovative or Overwhelming.” A thought-provoking Twitter thread flowed from the session, further considering the proliferation of technology tools used in the college classroom today. We here at WCET were thrilled when Brandon accepted our invitation to continue the discussions started in his Annual Meeting session. Brandon asks some great questions about student tech use and provides several suggestions on the best ways to be more supportive of our student’s success.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Prior to the Fall 2022 semester, I participated in the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Online Teaching Certification Course, which led me to redesign a course that I had not taught for a number of years. Throughout my design process, I found myself conflicted. I was excited about all of the new things I wanted to try but knew that for the sake of my students, I needed to pump the brakes. More specifically, I knew that I needed to limit the number of technologies that I would ask my students to use. It’s staggering to consider the number of systems, websites, software packages, and other technologies that students have to navigate simply to be successful students in higher education. For my students this past Fall, who were also my advisees, they often told me about the struggles they had in various courses, or when registering for classes. With each new tool, they had to learn something new, figure out a new set of idiosyncrasies, and navigate another set of expectations. The amount of technologies used certainly varies from university to university, but students likely encounter a dozen or more by the end of the first year, and that number only grows. Students need to figure out the learning management system, email, and every instructional technology along the way that faculty require (not to mention everything that isn’t directly course related). It’s hard enough that the tools used from course to course vary, but students also have to deal with them being used inconsistently as well. This issue is further compounded by faculty expectations not aligning with of the digital skills that students have when they arrive on campus. These factors have created an environment where students are truly struggling to navigate the quagmire that is technology in higher education.

During the 2022 WCET conference in Denver, I hosted an unconference session titled Higher Ed Technology: Innovative or Overwhelming? This post is an expansion on the ideas shared during that session and a reflection of some of the recent work I have been doing to examine student perceptions of technology use.

To examine this further, I’ll share a couple of examples where I see students struggling with technology and then offer next steps to consider.

What’s Working and What Isn’t?

a young woman holds her hands on her head - indicating frustration - while looking at a laptop — *Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels*

One of the first things support staff should be doing is talking to our faculty and especially our students (this is not a hot take, I know). The question posed in the title of this section, “What’s working and what isn’t?” is the same question that we asked both faculty and students at Bucknell in 2021 as part of our Learning Management System (LMS) evaluation of Moodle.

We were beginning to emerge from an extended foray in emergency remote instruction and were hoping to better understand our student and faculty perceptions, pain points, and success stories related to Moodle use. We knew that our students and faculty had relied on Moodle more than ever before and we wanted to know how it went. Here’s what students told us:

The most reported major struggle was focused around inconsistent layouts from course to course, which led to confusion.
An often reported but related struggle was with grades and deadlines, which were inconsistently posted or, in some cases, not posted at all.
Students also commented on the sheer number of tools that were necessary to learn and keep straight.

While these highlight the most reported pain points for students, it’s important to note that when we asked them for good examples of Moodle use, students mentioned specific courses that did a good job organizing content in a way that was intuitive and easy to follow, had clear deadlines, and consistently posted grades.

This past fall, we spoke to students again to have the same conversations, ask the same questions, and see how things were going with Moodle use. Bucknell was back to full in-person teaching and we needed to see if the same pain points were there – spoiler alert, they were.

Students echoed the comments and feedback we had received prior, struggling with inconsistencies and confusion in their courses. This highlighted to us that student struggles were not limited to emergency remote instruction, but were present regardless of modality.

Student Digital Skills: Expectations vs. Reality

The idea of a “digital native” is certainly problematic and something that I and others often push back against. We need to stop thinking of our students as this group of learners that just inherently know how to use digital tools. Over the past few years, and increasingly during the COVID-19 pandemic, we heard from frustrated faculty members about the digital skills our students lacked. Faculty members expectations of what students knew did not match reality. The digital skills that students bring to the table are changing and are often not what faculty members expect. Recently, an article in EdSurge by Lilah Burke explored this exact discrepancy.

a person sitting at a table typing on a laptop keyboard — *Photo by Kampus Production from Pexels*

Like the faculty members in that article, our faculty have reported similar issues, repeating a common frustration that students do not know how to use Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets, or similar spreadsheet software. Many have also noted that, when asked, students cannot find or locate files, nor do they understand how basic file structures work. While these skills may be important, the technologies that students are exposed to prior to college vary wildly and often work fundamentally different than they used to, no longer requiring, for instance, the need to locate files in a file structure.

Our response to this at Bucknell has been to create a learning community with faculty and staff members from the library, IT, and various departments on campus. Our goals are to:

identify which digital competencies are the most important for student success,
determine where digital skill gaps exist, and,
gather campus partners to learn how we can better prepare our students.

So, What Now?

Part of my job as the Manager of Instructional Technology at Bucknell is to explore and pilot new technologies, evaluate the tools that we already have, and to be a leader on campus for instructional technology. This is not a unique role and a version of it exists at many (if not most) universities. As someone with this role, I find myself in a precarious position where I must discuss the overwhelming amount of technology that students face but also support the use and development of said technology. However, I truly feel that while technologists, designers, and IT leadership (among others) may have contributed to this problem, we can and should be part of the solution. Here are my thoughts on moving forward:

Our faculty need more increased opportunities to participate in and more effective workshops that focus on digital pedagogy and push them to focus on what they want students to do, not the technology alone.
Those of us in IT leadership roles need to be advocates for students when it comes to technology on campus and to consider broader, student-centered implications of our decisions.
Decision makers, designers, and technologists need to be empowered to say no to requests for new technology, especially when it contributes to the proliferation of tools that students need to contend with.

person gestures to laptop screen — *Photo by Headway on Unsplash*

While support staff have a role, so do faculty. Something that I struggle with is the never relenting fight between academic freedom and standardization for the sake of students. Students are practically screaming for more consistency in their courses when it comes to technology use and we see this sentiment in the recent work at WCET.

I get asked weekly to check out or consider a new technology that a faculty member wants to try and my feedback always begins with the feedback from our LMS survey and a discussion about technology as well as learning goals. In order for faculty to help us alleviate technology overload, they have a key role and should consider:

Helping students understand why you are selecting a specific tool. In his excellent book, Intentional Tech, Derek Bruff discusses not only the importance of scaffolding the use of technology but also explaining the why of technology use to students. Students need to understand why you are using technology and to be provided with adequate training on how to use it.
Consider and embrace consistency for the sake of students. As a direct result of our student feedback, we developed Moodle templates in collaboration with campus leaders among the faculty and have had very positive feedback, especially from new faculty.
Put. Down. The. Shiny. Object. Similar to support staff saying no, we also need faculty members to consider putting down the shiny new tool. Most campuses have a whole suite of instructional technologies that are integrated with campus systems, making them easier to use for students, and often alleviating FERPA concerns. Trust me, I know that your tool has this one really cool feature, but maybe consider not adding yet another thing to the plates of your students?

Ultimately, my hope is that by working more closely with faculty, IT leadership, and students, we can continue to improve student experiences when it comes to technology and put them in a better position to focus on the content of their courses, not the technologies that are used in them. However, this is a group effort and requires significant work from staff and faculty. I’m confident that we will continue making strides and I look forward to continuing to work with our students to make sure their needs are put first. I hope that you’ll do the same.

Managing Digital Learning, Student Success, Technology

Practice

We Can’t Go It Alone – Forging Business and Industry Partnerships to Transform Higher Education

By Lindsey Downs

January 26, 2023

Today we welcome back Kara Monroe, friend of WCET and President and Founder, Monarch Strategies, to continue her discussion of the future of higher education. Specifically, today’s post focuses on institution and industry partnerships and how institutional leadership and staff can ensure that these partnerships flourish and, ultimately, help our students be more successful.

Take it away, Kara!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

In my previous post this month, I talked about the need for higher education in creating a vital American economic future. Even as our institutional enrollments decline, employers are demanding more workers with new skills and abilities – two trends that appear as if they will continue at least for the near future of this current decade. In that post, I suggested three things that we in higher education must do:

We must do what is hard
We must do what students need
We must hold accountable those who hold us accountable

In this post, we’re going to dig into the specifics of one way you might bring each of these three things to life as we talk about forming deep partnerships with the businesses and industries that you serve.

What Businesses Does Your Institution Serve?

three people look together at a computer — *Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com on Unsplash*

When I visit colleges and universities around the country, I often ask Presidents and Provosts who their primary employers are. It is a sure sign of trouble when neither of these individuals can name the top two or three employers of their students.

In order to build strong workforce partnerships, you must first know who it is that your students find their way to after graduation. While many business engagements with colleges and universities begin as alumni relationships or sitting across the table in an economic development trip to lure a new business to a community these are not the stuff true partnership is made of.

Institutions that continue to rely on only that final graduate survey to identify employers are not doing what is hard. These surveys often yield results of only 10 – 20% and with results coming from only our best and brightest students. We must leverage student relationships with their program faculty to gather better data and even mining publicly available data to help us identify where students are working.

What Businesses Should Your Institution Be Serving?

As you get a better understanding of the business and industry community your institution serves you must also consider the other organizations that SHOULD be on that list. Given the programs and services offered at your institution, what organizations should be on your list of businesses and industries? I do not, in any way, intend for this to be an aspirational list. This should be a factual list of the organizations that need your students in order to thrive. Far too many educational leaders are obsessed with building their own ego because they can talk about the number of Fortune 500’s students are employed at and similar statements. Those are NOT the organizations that need your help in your local geographic area. Research conducted in 2009 found that students travel a median distance of just 94 miles to go to college. While many factors influence how far a student may be willing or able to travel to attend college – and certainly the availability of online education may drive significant change here in the future – you should begin identifying those businesses your institution should be serving close to home and work outwards from there.

Once you have both lists – compare them. This will help you identify where to begin in building new partnerships.

What is the Strength of Our Partnership(s)?

Once you’ve identified the partnerships you should have it is time to begin to assess their strength. This step is far too often skipped in higher education institutions. Yet, it is critical to help prioritize how individuals in the institution spend their time – something often lacking or at least overlooked as C-level leaders simply make agreements about institutional time and resources without necessarily weighing the cost of those agreements against any set of benchmarks.

The best set of assessment criteria for partnerships that I’ve come across comes from the US AID Momentum Report. This report, while primarily focused on the workings of governments and NGOs, summarizes work that is similar to much of what we undertake in higher education. The language to describe partners might vary a bit but the principles are highly generalizable. If you’re serious about undertaking this work, the report and many of the links out of the report are worth your time to read but for the purposes of this post, I’ll summarize the factors identified as critical to the strength of a partnership.

First, USAID points to the Sustainable Development Goals Handbook’s levels of partnership:

Figure of "the partnership spectrum." State one, leverage/exchange. Partners deliver resources to derive benefits. Stage two: combine/integrate. Partners combine similar or complementary resources to delivery impact more effectively, efficiently, or creatively. Stage three: Systems transformation, partners bring essential complementary resources" that create systems level change not possible individually. — *Image Source: USAID Momentum Report*

So, begin here – identify the state for each of your partnerships. I’ll dig more deeply into what each of these stages tell us about overall partnership health in the companion piece to this post available to WCET members in wcetMIX (coming soon!).

Next, you can undertake a partnership assessment that is more thorough. The Momentum Report includes several key points you may wish to assess along with a survey of assessment instruments in the field. In the WCET Member companion piece, I’ve provided a rubric that has been valuable for me in assessing partnerships and a look at how to conduct that assessment without it being burdensome.

What is the Institution’s Partnership Capacity?

Partnership strength often rests on the shoulders of the individuals engaged in the partnership. As a former C-level institutional leader, I know full well that I often asked already overcommitted individuals to take on an even higher level of responsibility and commitment without offering them any real way to balance the workload. So, in this specific question, I’m calling on all of us to do better than I did.

For many institutions this can start with a simple survey of faculty and staff focused on two sets of questions:

What organizations are you a part of and what’s your role (i.e., firms advisory board members come from that you should be better serving, Chambers of Commerce that represent organizations you should be serving better, manufacturing and business consortiums)?
What organizations do you have relationships with and what are those relationships?

And, please, don’t just send out a survey with these questions in it and not expect extreme pushback. This type of inquiry MUST be grounded in a trust ethic that, if not present at your institution, implies work you must do before you ever start to assess your external partnership capacity. Start with your internal partnership capacity and make sure that everyone in your institution has opportunities to be heard, to take risks, and to engage in ways that allow them to showcase their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

In a high trust organization these questions can enlighten inroads to organizations that you had no idea you already had such deep relationships with. An institution in a “factory town” that I visited several years ago was struggling to help that factory see its value until they did a survey like this one and realized that more than 80% of their employees had a spouse or child employed in the factory. Taking this one piece of data to the manufacturer’s leadership team opened up new conversations that had never before been possible. It seems like a small and insignificant fact, but it launched a massive partnership.

What Must the Institution Stop Doing?

I’m going to close this piece with the hardest of the questions I have for you – what must we stop doing to make room for what we must start? I have found that nearly everyone in a higher education institution is willing to tell you what someone else should stop doing (that requires work on their part for it to be successful) but are far less likely to list anything that they should stop doing. The partner of this is focusing only on those things to stop doing that would require massive shifts in government and accreditor guidelines rather than focusing on what is actually happening.

*Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com on Unsplash*

Don’t dismiss these things that require massive government or accreditor shifts. You still need to work diligently to chip away at these – and that is largely the role of Directors and above – but you must NOT let these sideline what can actually be stopped within the institution. I also urge you not to focus only on those items that point to a need for process improvement. While those items will inevitably come out in these types of exercises, they will not lead to the type of real time freeing change that you’re seeking. They are valuable, but not the highest value possible from this exercise.

So, you must identify instances where there are things that – oftentimes – rest in individuals’ whole reasons for having a job. A campus under my purview was drowning in “schedule change.” emails. When I dug into the issue with them, we realized that one administrative assistant was sending out an average of 40 emails a day during peak registration periods. For a community college on a predominantly eight week schedule, that really felt like it was all the time. Several of her other duties had been taken over by automation and process improvement and to make sure she appeared busy and essential to everyone around her she started “monitoring” the schedule to “help” program chairs know when to add new sections, close sections, etc. The only problem was it was adding to the workload rather than decreasing it. And this person was smart and talented – her skills could be used in many better ways. When her supervisor finally had a real conversation with her about her goals, he learned she wanted to be an academic advisor but couldn’t afford to go to college to get her bachelor’s degree. She wasn’t aware of the HR policy for tuition reimbursement and that essentially she could earn that degree for almost nothing out of pocket. That simple conversation put her on a new life path that she found far more fulfilling and improved institutional capacity. Are they all this easy to solve or this positive in outcome? Not at all. However, these are the types of things you must dig into and really suss out if you’re going to figure out what you must stop doing.

Join Us for What’s Next

These steps create a framework on which you can build and sustain partnerships. I’ll go into even more depth on many of these pieces as well as steps specific to building partnerships in the companion piece available to WCET members inside of wcetMIX. We’ll also discuss these together – learning from others what has worked and what hasn’t – in this month’s Closer Conversation on Jan 27, 2023 – also available to all WCET members.

Distance Education, Higher Education Trends, Online Learning, Student Success, Workforce/Employment

Practice

Call in the Creatives! Reasons the Next Digital Learner Leader You Hire Should Come from The Arts

By Lindsey Downs

January 24, 2023

Today’s post, from three inspirational leaders in the digital and eLearning fields, considers the strengths brought from those who have a background in The Arts. As a musician, theater nerd, and amateur embroiderer, I absolutely enjoyed their discussion and wholeheartedly endorse their advice!

Thank you to Sasha, Jessica, and Jamie for today’s article!.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Alert your recruitment team – the arts are an asset

Chances are if you’ve worked in the field of eLearning for any length of time, you’ve had a leader with a hidden background in the arts. These individuals have developed unique and transferable skill sets that are increasingly valued in the workplace. You may recognize them as creative individuals with problem-solving skills who aren’t afraid of hard work. They ask for and provide feedback, and critiques they receive are seen as healthy and necessary parts of the team dynamic. They set a clear vision and systematically focus on delivering it. Most importantly, they get things done. A lot of things.

Many of these leaders had to hide or recast their arts backgrounds when transitioning into the digital learning field.

Before you pass up that resume filled with arts experience and expertise, know that leadership is less about specific technical or subject-matter skills, and far more about creating and communicating a clear vision, orchestrating a productive and engaged team dynamic, inspiring a team to work hard with habits that develop excellence, and managing to that “hard deadline.” If you understand these characteristics, those resumes represent the candidates that are the most qualified, because they’ve been developing these skills for a lifetime.

Leaders from the Arts are Visionary – Sasha Thackaberry

What is the vision? People who have spent years in the arts understand that the vision comes first. The concept of the end state of artwork – whether it be the performance, the show in the gallery – that state is the goal, first and foremost, always. This vision is more than motivating, it is animating. It is the reason for it all.

Leaders who have “grown up” in the arts bring that vision fever to their work. The reason needs to sit at the core of the everyday. It is bigger than ourselves, but it is also more specific than “student success” or “enrollment growth.” It is a shared vision of the future creation that everyone contributes to.

*Photo by Klaudia Piaskowska on Unsplash*

This vision is so important that there is no room for fear or risk aversion. Built into the artistic process is the potential for failure – sometimes a large potential for failure – and that, too, is animating. It propels constant forward progress. Jeanette Winterson, a writer of extraordinary talent, put it simply when she stated that “From our fear comes our safety.”

But the “how” is the hard part. Artists, and performing artists specifically, have an ability to declutter, to get rid of the unnecessary to focus on the most important pieces of executing that vision. Ruthless prioritization is not optional. There is a date that cannot be pushed back because tickets have already been sold, the gallery has already been booked, the lighting crew is only available for that timeframe. So leaders in the arts have to make hard decisions around what gets time and effort and when.

This relentless focus on “what really matters” enables leaders who come from the arts to bring continual focus and prioritization towards the end goal into the everyday. That synthesis of vision and ruthless prioritization is what ensures that, when the curtains part on the opening night, the performers are ready to go.

It also means letting go of ancillary needs, pivoting when the inevitable constraints come up, and continually adjusting to deliver on that vision. In the words of Tyler Durden, it is “the ability to let that which does not matter, truly slide.”

Leaders from the Arts Fail Forward – Jessica Stanfill

Putting vision into action can be daunting for many. Who hasn’t felt paralyzed by the mountain of work required to accomplish a goal, the fear of imperfections, or the haunting voice that tells all of us I am just not good enough? The artist is equipped to get to work despite these fears because of the very nature of art making. Through relentless practice, day after day, where ideas are tried and sometimes fail, the artist has built a reservoir of confidence, knowing that practice makes perfect, mistakes can be embraced, and evaluation is a part of the process.

An artist can get to work immediately because they know that their very first try is not precious. It is just the very first act on the journey to the final performance. There is no risk in diving in when you know whatever you accomplish today isn’t the finale. And that confidence is more fueled by the notion that one piece of the puzzle doesn’t equal the whole. A less-than-stellar start will not determine the outcome, only not starting will.

For someone who has spent a lifetime practicing an artistic craft, they believe even a terrible start is a good start because they know that mistakes are gold. The realization that something doesn’t work is just as informative as when something does work. An A-HA! moment is not always when it was done right. In fact, we are most apt to learn and grow when we are in the process of doing something new and foreign and we fail miserably at it. For the painter, the very act of creating a finished painting is the application of paint and the removal of it – building something up and taking the mistakes away.

The internal critique is a constant part of the process as the artist looks for that gold in the wash pan. And the artist knows where to find the mistakes by asking others. A person who has spent time developing an artistic craft is comfortable in the space of open, honest, and oftentimes brutal dialogue around their work. They have learned that great wisdom can come from the unique perspectives of others. They alone do not hold all the answers, and the artist has developed a great desire to hear everyone else’s opinion, and seek out the most transformative ideas that others present to them. As the famous writer of Fight Club Chuck Palahniuk declared after being complimented on his work, “I am merely the sum of everyone who has taught me anything at all.”

Leaders from the Arts Orchestrate Culture – Jamie Holcomb

“[A conductor’s] happiness does not come from only his own story and his joy of the music. The joy is about enabling other people’s stories to be heard at the same time.” – Itay Talgam

Great performances look easy, are seemingly effortless, and are a joy to experience from start to finish. Everyone touching the performance in some way is happy and having fun. You know you’ve experienced something special when this is the case. That said, it is no accident nor coincidence that these outcomes were observed, and success achieved. Leadership in the arts relies on a unique and complex understanding of team dynamics and culture development that values each and every member of the team for what they uniquely contribute both individually and to the ensemble as a whole.

For the conductor (leader), one must consider balance, blend, intonation, dynamic contrast, harmony, melody, and the story to be told through the music for the listener (goal). As leadership expert Simon Sinek has emphasized, success starts with “why.” Building team dynamics begins with clearly defining the ensemble’s goal (telling the story of the music) and a purpose greater than oneself – the team’s why. Balance, blend, and intonation are all related to team dynamics. Essentially, leaders are looking to make sure the team has all of the parts necessary to be successful, that they are all heard, and that no one section/voice outweighs the other, which can create challenges.

Leaders in the arts work to meld voices together so that they are seamless to the audience. To achieve this, a leader develops listening skills and flexibility so that performers are constantly listening to one another and adjusting appropriately in the moment to support the larger goal. For a leader in the arts, the supporting lines are just as important as melody, and each performer is trained to lead and support interchangeably so that there are leaders in every seat. With an ensemble where everyone is both a leader and a supporter, performance outcomes are enhanced because accountability is high (no hiding), but there is also the support necessary to be successful. When everyone contributes, is accountable to the group, is aligned to the mission/goal, and sees the value in all voices/parts, the team takes on an energy of its own that embraces challenges and finds joy in working and performing together.

Ready for Curtain Time

Time is a finite resource. Using that time effectively is paramount. This is where skills gained through art experiences become great assets for those attempting to meet organizational goals and objectives.

Artists understand that perfection is unattainable. Deadlines are immovable. The doors will always open. The curtain will always go up. The audience will always evaluate your work. Artists are fearless in the face of criticism; critique is the way it is.

Leaders with arts backgrounds have spent lifetimes working efficiently towards deadlines. Project management skills are honed over decades, skillfully choreographing multiple moving pieces into a coherent whole in a tight timeline.

Distance Education, Leadership, Online Learning

Practice

Accountability for Higher Education Means Creating a Vital Economic Future for America

By Lindsey Downs

January 19, 2023

Does anyone else feel like we are constantly on a precipice – waiting for the next “big thing” to tip us over? I do feel that way often, whether I’m thinking about my professional life, technological advances, or an innovative VR art exhibit I really want to check out.

Higher Ed is having one of those moments. And its not quite as intriguing as ChatGPT or visiting a museum by wearing a VR headset, but important nonetheless. Our tipping point however, is due to changes in our economy, population, and workforce needs.

Today we welcome Kara Monroe, longtime colleague and friend of WCET and President and Founder, Monarch Strategies, to discuss current higher ed enrollment predictions and the demands from employers that we must answer. It’s higher ed’s time to shine (and hopefully not tip over the edge).

Kara will be writing another post this month as well as several resources for WCET members. Stay tuned!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

A few days ago, I watched the Netflix documentary about music producer David Foster. In describing his childhood, Foster said, “We had no money but we weren’t poor.” Foster grew up in a two parent household where dad worked and mom stayed home to raise seven children. That line struck me – it feels so impossible to achieve a semblance of that life in today’s world. Today, being poor seems so much harder to overcome than it did in the 1950s when Foster came of age.

Graphic highlighting child poverty rates by state in 2021.
Three-quarters of states in the South region (12 states) and the District of Columbia had child poverty rates of at least 18.0%.

The Midwest and Northeast each had only one state with child poverty rates of at least 18.0% and the West had two.

Child poverty rates by state:

Among the lowest were Utah (8.1%) and New Hampshire (9.2%). (These estimates are not significantly different from one another.)
Among the highest were Mississippi (27.7%), Louisiana (26.9%) and the District of Columbia (23.9%). — *Poverty Rate of Children Higher Than National Rate, Lower for Older Populations*

My parents were able to put together a really great life for me and my three siblings. We had a little money but at times I considered us poor – particularly in comparison to some of my peers. Neither of my parents had a college education.

My dad tried at college and failed. My mom, who would likely have been the first of us to earn a doctorate had the opportunity been available to her, was kept out of the higher education arena by time, circumstances, and some of her own decisions.

But, today, poverty is, particularly for children, in some places as high as it was when Foster was coming of age. The poverty rate in 1950 was 22% – the highest on record. Today, at its surface, the poverty rate in the US is much lower – about 11.6%. However, when you drill into it you realize that the variation tells the real story. Child poverty tops 22% in many places and poverty levels vary by state for all age groups.

What is also interesting to consider as we think about the poverty rate is that the percentage may have changed, but as the American population has decreased dramatically over the last few decades, the actual number of people living in poverty has not changed. This is an interesting highlight of the wealth gap in America, and higher education must help to address this by providing individuals with the skills to overcome poverty.

Number in poverty and poverty rate. from 1959 - 2021. Shows a starting point of around 40 million in 1960s, a large dip in the 70s to around 25 million, then a slow increase through the late 2010, a high bump in 2015 to over 45 million, and a drop back to 40 million by 2021. Poverty rate begins around 23% in 1959 and fairly steadily drops to 11.6 % by 2021. — *National Poverty in America Awareness Month: January 2023*

Additionally, the American population is aging. Far fewer young people are projected to be born – leading to an enrollment cliff for higher education institutions in the U.S..

WICHE’s excellent report, Knocking at the College Door, is an outstanding analysis of these and other trends impacting higher education’s enrollment.

I urge you, if you have not yet, to go to the Knocking Report and explore your own state’s data in depth. As a nation though, what the report projects is a decline in enrollment.

*State by State Enrollment Projections 2020-2037 according to Knocking 2020 Report, For Interactive Table visit: https://knocking.wiche.edu/data/knocking-10th-data/*

This gives us a blunt picture of the future of the supply and demand in American higher education – but what of the supply chain we serve – that of employees for the American workforce. Employers are demanding more talented labor now – and will continue to do so into the future with an anticipated 8.3 million jobs being created by 2031.

This means, we in higher education must change – and we must do so quickly. Embracing new manufacturing technologies, new computing skills, and making changes in the ways that we educate individuals to better meet their needs and the needs of the employers we serve.

The Changes We Must Make

We Must Do What Is Hard

I recently evaluated grants for a nonprofit organization. The grants were for expansion and/or improvement of nursing programs at mostly community colleges across the country. The grantor was looking for “innovative” programs. To my great disappointment, the most innovative thing that any institution really presented in that grant program were part-time programs and evening/weekend programs.

Part-time and evening/weekend programs in nursing or other areas are certainly challenging; they are far from innovative.

We must move beyond saying something is hard or impossible. Instead, higher ed should begin by breaking down the challenge into individual parts. Next, we can figure out creative ways to overcome those smaller challenges. Part-time and evening/weekend programs demand more of faculty and of our institutional partners and of institutional support services – and we must meet those demands.

We Must Do What Students Need

Our example from above provides the framework for the next thing that higher education must do if we’re going to keep pace with the changes in the economy:we must do what students need us to do rather than what we want to do.

Part of why part-time and evening/weekend programs are necessary is that students need to be able to work, care for their families, and go to school all at the same time. We must make education fit into the lives of students.

A friend from California visited over the holidays. She explained that their enrollment at her college was up to pre-COVID levels when they left online classes on their schedule. But, according to her, in California online classes are reimbursed by the state at a lower rate than traditional classes and so administrators pulled online classes off the schedule to put on more traditional classes. They built it. But students didn’t come.

This leads to our third point of what we must do.

We Must Hold Accountable Those Who Hold Us Accountable

From accrediting agencies to state and federal governments, we in higher education must redouble our efforts to improve the quality of education while also improving its reach. Brookings told us in 2017 that access was no longer the problem – but completion was. I disagreed with that finding then and I disagree even more with it now. Both quality and access are problems of equal degrees and they must be worked on in tandem.

Photo of several young adults in a classroom — *Photo by javier trueba on Unsplash*

In higher education we often feel like we’re being held accountable by everyone and yet no one is accountable to us, except perhaps our students. However, in real accountability systems there are feedback loops that help to measure the quality of the accountability. Where these don’t exist today we must advocate for their inclusion and leave organizations that are no longer serving us or our students.

From accrediting organizations that say they will refuse to accredit programs with any fully online classes to legislators that believe it is in our best interest to go through the arduous and expensive process of changing accreditors every decade or so, we must provide accountability in new and better ways. Engage employer partners who indicate they won’t hire your graduates unless they have a specific accreditation and provide them data on how students do in follow up classes, even after taking a preceding class online. And, clean up your own house. If You find data that shows a lack of accountability on your part, do the work to redesign and improve that course. Help those employer partners leverage the accreditor on your behalf. And, no matter what you do, vote. Educate your students and encourage them to make educated voting decisions.

Continuing to Consider the Future

This was a broad look at what higher education needs to do in order to meet the demands of a growing and changing economy. Especially as more higher education enrollment comes from new and different sources, rather than the traditional high school population that has long been our lifeblood.

In the next blog post, I’m going to provide a more specific approach to partnership with businesses and industry to give you a framework for how this could happen at any institution. And, we’ll follow this up in this month’s Closer Conversation for WCET members as well as have a detailed guide in MIX for WCET Members. I’d love to know where you’ve tried and succeeded and where you’ve tried and failed in the comments or on Twitter at @KNMTweets.

Distance Education, Higher Education Trends, Online Learning, Student Success, Workforce/Employment

Policy

Strategies for Success Through Digital Learning 2023

By Lindsey Downs

January 17, 2023

image with details of the webinar sessions

Professional development is a highly important factor to our success. This is why we are sharing information on Every Learner Everywhere’s upcoming series “Strategies for Success Through Digital Learning.” This program includes access to a community of practice.

Today, we’re joined by Every Learner Everywhere’s Manager of Network Programs and Services, Norma Hollebeke, who discusses the importance of professional development, rwith several opportunities for learning – webcasts, discussion, community of practice, etc.”

Enjoy the read and enjoy your day,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Effective learning happens when educators responsible for learning come together to share their knowledge, ideas, and inquire into their practices. It is vital for educators (faculty, academic staff, and administrators) to embrace and actively partake in professional learning as part of their continuous improvement. Quality professional learning explores diverse topics, identifies good practices, and encourages educators to continuously improve for the good of their students. Every Learner strives to provide professional learning opportunities that are highly collaborative, engage in problem-solving and deeper learning, as well as professional growth.

Strategies for Success Through Equitable Teaching and Learning is an interactive professional development series for faculty, staff, and other higher education professionals invested in high-quality digital learning. Participants engage in weekly webinars presented by experts. Additionally, participants may also join a community of practice with their peers as an opportunity to enhance the learning experience. The community of practice is an optional activity with limited capacity and requires separate registration. Successful completion of the community of practice results in a digital micro-credential. Today, I wanted to share more information about each session as well as the community of practice.

Session Information

Beyond Inclusion: Teaching for civic engagement and participation

January 27, 2023 10:00am MT

Bryan Dewsbury

In this talk we will explore the ways in which we can reconnect our classroom practice with the values, behaviors and mindsets needed for a socially just society. We will draw on examples from history to make the case for a more explicit pedagogy, with examples from an introductory STEM course, demonstrating how these practices prepare students for all forms of social participation.

An Equity-First Approach to Postsecondary Digital Learning

February 3, 2023 12:00pm MT

Aireale J. Rodgers

As digital learning becomes an increasingly popular modality for teaching and learning, so too has the use of courseware in postsecondary institutions. Approaching the design and implementation of digital courseware from an explicitly equity-minded perspective is vital to supporting historically marginalized students. In this interactive webinar, we introduce the Equity First Framework for Digital Learning, a set of six considerations for courseware designers and instructors seeking to leverage courseware as a tool to support equitable and just student learning. Together, we will discuss tangible ways to apply the framework in your teaching practice.

Learning from Our Students: Student Perspectives on Good Teaching

February 10, 2023 12:00pm MT

Christine Latulippe

Through our actions and characteristics, college instructors have the power to improve students’ experiences in higher education, and who better than students to describe the ways instructors have “got it right” and made a difference in their lives? This presentation highlights key takeaways from the recent Every Learner Everywhere publication “What Our Best College Instructors Do”, including real student stories about good teaching organized around evidence-based teaching practices, and equity principles in higher education. Session participants will consider ways that this collection of student insights might be used to improve teaching, and also consider ways to solicit and utilize feedback from their own students. For anyone who’s ever wondered what students think about teaching and learning, this session will provide ideas to incorporate student voice into the continuous improvement of their craft as teachers.

Designing Online Learning as Intersectional, Entangled Commitments

February 17, 2023 12:00pm MT

Xeturah Woodley and Mary Rice

This presentation will be an opportunity for participants to engage in conversations about the renewal that emerges alongside intersectional online course design. The presenters will interrogate existing notions of course design that create an unsustainable rivalry between teaching and learning.

By shifting our ways of knowing and being about online course design we are better able to create inclusive environments that simultaneously value the being and doing of learning and teaching.

Community of Practice – Strategies for Success Through Digital Learning

January 27-March 3, 2023

Educators who want to improve their teaching practices and enrich student learning experiences can benefit from working together, sharing practices, and exploring resources. This Community of Practice (CoP) will support instructors and other academic professionals by providing an intentional space for developing and extending the conversations beyond the weekly webinars.

Our goals for this community are:

To support educators who want to make their teaching more effective and improve student learning
To facilitate conversations that encourage transformation in the classroom that benefit Black, Latinx and Indigenous students, poverty-affected students, and first-generation students
To build a body of knowledge for community members to draw on and share with others

In support of these goals, participants will connect and learn in the following ways:

Engaging in a series of live sessions with national leaders in digital learning, evidence-based teaching, and equity
Connecting in asynchronous, peer-driven discussions supported by facilitators
Exploring a collection of curated and shared resources

Registration Information

Registration for the full Webinar Series: $100
Registration for a Single Webinar: $30
Registration for the Community of Practice: $50

Unable to join the webinar series live? Register for access to the recordings.

We encourage you to take advantage of this exclusive professional learning opportunity while seats are still available. Registration is now open.

Digital Learning, Every Learner Everywhere, Professional Development

Practice

What Faculty Designers Can Tell Us about Online Course Reviews

By Lindsey Downs

January 12, 2023

graphic of a grey and blue text box with quote: Ultimately, this is about the success of your students."

In 2019, I asked our readers the question “how do you ensure quality in online courses?” This question was part of my introduction to a fantastic article written by Aimee deNoyelles from the University of Central Florida. Aimee discussed UCF’s quality assurance program – an online course review process that acknowledges the achievement of quality online course design.

Well, after several years (including those disrupted by you know what) of implementing said course review process, Aimee joins us again today to give us an update on additional results of the course review process and discuss recommendations for improving the program based on recent faculty surveys and focus groups. Thank you to Aimee (and the team at UCF!) for your hard work supporting quality online learning and for sharing your journey with us here at Frontiers.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

In a previous Frontiers post, I shared my university’s approach to promoting online course reviews to teaching faculty. Main recommendations included in that post were for online course reviewers to:

engage in dialogue with the faculty designer;
emphasize guiding philosophies of the course review process;
amplify student and faculty voices; and,
celebrate the successes.

Once reviewed, courses could potentially be designated as quality online courses, which highlights that the course meets certain characteristics and expectations.

Three unpredictable years have passed since that post was written. Since then, another 300+ course designations have been earned by nearly 300 faculty members. In addition to the basic online course designation (“Quality”) that was developed in 2017, an advanced designation called “High Quality” began being offered in 2018. Due to demand from faculty and the success with blended courses, courses offered in blended modalities became eligible for the “Quality” review in 2020, with the “High Quality” version following in 2021.

Having last gathered formal feedback from faculty in 2019, we thought it was high time to reengage in dialogue in 2021. Faculty who had ever earned a course designation were invited to complete surveys and participate in focus groups in order to better understand the dynamics of the online course review. Four themes emerged:

Theme 1 – Identifying the Motivations to Participate

blue and grey text box with quote: “Ultimately, this is about the success of your students.”

When asked about their motivations to participate in course reviews, the majority (74%) of survey respondents said the primary reason was “to improve the learning experiences for students.” All other reasons (“I wanted a digital badge to display,” “I enjoy working with my instructional designer,” “This supports my promotion and tenure”) were much lower (under 10%).

This supports one of the underlying guiding philosophies posed in my earlier blog post: “Ultimately, this is about the success of your students.” 90% agreed or strongly agreed that the course review process improved the design of the course. Some respondents mentioned these specific improvements:

Better course organization,
Ease of use and improved accessibility, and
Increased student performance.

Theme 2 – Articulating the Nature and Evolution of the Reviews

A woman in white sits in a chair in front of a laptop — *Photo by LinkedIn Sales Solutions on Unsplash*

The review items address effective online course design rather than teaching. Understanding the nature of the review remained a challenge for faculty participants. As one respondent declared in the survey, “Quality can’t be done in a checklist – it’s the knowledge of the instructor and the skill working with students.” Faculty in the focus group were asked to interpret this declaration. This led to a discussion about how faculty saw the items in the review (the “checklist”) as a means to set up the conditions for a quality online learning experience, with the role of the instructor crucial in actually bringing it to fruition.

Survey respondents were asked how well they understood aspects of the review process. Some aspects were not as understood as well as we would have hoped, namely “when the designation expires,” “what course modalities are eligible for a review,” and “how a High Quality designation is achieved.” In hindsight, this should not have been a surprise, since all three of those items have either been updated or introduced since the inception of the review process in 2017.

Theme 3 – Clarifying Faculty and Reviewer Roles

One of the guiding philosophies of the course review process is the engagement in a collaborative review with the course reviewer, which is typically an instructional designer (ID). The relationship with the ID was positively regarded. 94% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the collaboration helped to generate strategies to improve course design.

A concern, however, was when an ID would recommend course revisions that the faculty did not personally agree with. As one faculty noted in the focus group, “I did things my ID told me to do to get the badge even though I didn’t really want to….” Another faculty member suggested reframing the initial dialogue from the ID; she wanted to hear, “tell me what you’re trying to achieve,” rather than “here’s what to do earn the designation.”

Theme 4 – Notifying the Student

During the focus group sessions, questions about student understanding of the course designation organically emerged. Questions included, “How do students know about it?”, “Can they see it when they sign up for the course?”, “How do they know to click on the badge?”, “How many students have clicked on the badge?” One faculty member lamented, “No students ask me about it.”

What’s Next?

Deeply listening to faculty members about the course review process is critical to the continued success of this evolving initiative. Based on their feedback, we developed the following key recommendations:

Explicitly relate faculty motivations to participate with the cited benefits of engaging in a review. We learned that faculty were engaging in the review to improve learning for students, therefore this is a relatable way to frame the reviews to people who are reluctant. To encourage faculty not yet participating, publicize the proven benefits; for instance, our course review home page shares direct quotes from participating faculty about improvements in course organization, accessibility, and student performance.

Clearly articulate the intention of the reviews to all parties involved: faculty, course reviewers, and students. Acknowledge that “quality can’t be [fully] done in a checklist” – that the faculty member is the expert and facilitation is important; however, these items have been proven to help design the initial foundation. This will require modifications to our website and training.
Clarify the aspects that are not well understood. Talking with faculty allowed us to understand the aspects of the process that were not well understood such as when the designation expires, what modalities were eligible, and how High Quality was achieved – all opportunities to strengthen the communication regarding the program. Modifications to the website and training are needed.
Emphasize the collaborative element of the review process. Positive feedback was given with regards to working with an instructional designer. We think that has a lot to do with the guiding philosophy of the review, and the front-end quality approach of pairing with instructional designers throughout the process. However, with instructional designers joining the team since the inception of the review process, along with growing workloads, it seems an appropriate time to reengage in dialogue about the balanced nature of “collaboration.”
Involve students more actively. In the previous blog post, one of the recommendations concerning promoting online course reviews was to amplify student voices. In several cases, students have been surveyed to provide their feedback about the course design before the review takes place, offering a “pre” and “post” comparison of sorts. Frankly, this has not happened as much as we would have liked. One effort to make students more aware of the designation came from a faculty member – he let us use his course announcement that describes the nature of the designation.

As discussed in my first post, quality can be a tense topic for many in the online education realm. However, by taking the time to listen to those most involved in course development and creation, we can, ultimately, ensure the success of our program, our faculty, and, most importantly, our students.

Digital Learning, Evaluation, Faculty, Instructional Design, Managing Digital Learning, Professional Development, Quality

Practice

Is AI the New Homework Machine? Understanding AI and Its Impact on Higher Education

By Lindsey Downs

January 5, 2023

By now you’ve likely seen the hubbub over ChatGPT, OpenAI’s new chat bot trained on their large language model AI GPT 3.5. Some of the more provocative announcements about the impact of artificial intelligence include:

The focus of much of this discussion about AI has been on academic integrity, specifically academic dishonesty. But bigger issues—digital literacy, pedagogical practices, equity—are also at play.

article overview with sections:

Introduction to WCET AI Work
Definitions
OpenAI's Chat GPT
Some Poetry about a Cat
Impact to Higher Education
What YOU Can do Now
Concluding Thoughts ON Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine

In 2023, WCET will look at Artificial Intelligence (AI) and provide support and resources to help you break through the rhetoric and understand both the promises and perils of AI in higher education.

To begin, this introductory blog post will focus on an overview of large language model AIs and their potential impact on higher education.

In coming months, we will do a number of deeper dives on AI and higher education including a Frontiers Podcast episode, a February brief that explores selected AI tools, several blog posts on AI’s impact on pedagogical practices, what a new digital literacy in the age of AI might look like, and the equity implications of large language model AI, as well as a summer white paper that will do a deeper dive on the pedagogical and policy implications of AI.

A Quick Primer and Glossary on Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence

Before we delve into the impact of AI on higher education, it’s worth taking a few minutes to consider artificial intelligence and its most recent manifestations.

Definitions

Artificial Intelligence (AI): Stanford University’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence group defines artificial intelligence as “a term coined by emeritus Stanford Professor John McCarthy in 1955, was defined by him as ‘the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.’ Much research has humans program machines to behave in a clever way, like playing chess, but, today, we emphasize machines that can learn, at least somewhat like human beings do.”

Machine learning: Machine learning was defined by AI pioneer Arthur Samuel in the 1950s as “the field of study that gives computers the ability to learn without explicitly being programmed.” Often times this now happens via neural networks.

Neural networks and deep learning: Neural networks are, simply put, computer networks that are built in such a way as to mimic the human brain with each node leading to other nodes, much as the brain is a complex collection of networked neurons. Neural networks lead to deep learning which allows the computer to learn from large amounts of data in a way that “creates an adaptive system that computers use to learn from their mistakes and improve continuously.”

Large language model (LLM): A language model trained on an enormous amount of text so that it is capable of predicting a given sequence of words. This capability allows the model to “understand” inquiries and replicate human language in a largely coherent way.

Much of the recent discussion is around large language model AI. This type of AI relies on a neural net to look for and find patterns in a massive amount of data. The larger the neural network, i.e., the number of nodes, the larger the data input can be, and, in theory, the more capability the AI has to interact with humans. Much large language model AI, such as OpenAI’s (a research and development company) ChatGPT, relies on large neural networks which allow the AI to continuously learn from its interactions with humans and improve its responses.

The Buzziest LLM AI Right Now: OpenAI’s ChatGPT and GPT 3.5

Last month OpenAI released ChatGPT, a chat interface for its GPT 3.5 large language model AI. Using the chat interface, users can make a seemingly endless array of queries of GPT 3.5 that result in often stunning responses. For example, when provided with a prompt to explain how the ChatGPT works, the program responded:

ChatGPT is a large language model that is trained to generate human-like text. It does this by being fed vast amounts of text data, which it uses to learn the patterns and structures of language. To generate text, ChatGPT uses a type of artificial intelligence called a transformer, which allows it to process language more efficiently and effectively. It also utilizes a technique called self-attention, which enables it to consider the relationships between words in a sentence and the context in which they are used. When given a prompt, ChatGPT uses all of this information to generate a response that is coherent and resembles natural language.

And when asked to write a poem in the style of iambic pentameter on the superiority of cats, the program responded:

In iambic pentameter, the most common type of meter in English poetry, each line contains ten syllables and has a regular pattern of unstressed and stressed syllables. The pattern is typically written as “da-DUM” and can be thought of as the beat of the poem. Here is a short poem about the superiority of cats written in iambic pentameter:

With grace and stealth they prowl the night

Unseen, until they choose to strike

Their sharpened claws and piercing eyes

A hunter's soul within their guise

Superior, sleek, and oh so wise

The feline reigns, the ruler of all

In every home, they rule the hall

And all who dare defy their might

Shall feel the wrath of feline fright

For cats are king, and dogs must bow

To their majestic, feline pow'r

Long live the cats, in all their glory

Their reign will never, ever be over.

And, finally, when asked to write a college application essay on one’s experiences of working in a soup kitchen which includes reflecting on what you learned and including an interaction with a small child, ChatGPT, in a matter of seconds, responded with a coherent, personalized, five paragraph essay. I fully believe that the fact that the essay was written by AI and not a live person would be undetectable for many college admissions committees.

Why, as a society, should we care about the release of ChatGPT? Very simply put, the release of ChatGPT and the development of other large language model AIs is a seminal moment in human history. The moment is akin to probably the single most important historical technological development—the creation of the movable type printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in the early 15^th century. Just as the printing press changed our relationship with information by making it available to a wider audience, large language model AI is changing our relationship with information by blurring the lines between human and machine. It forces us to reconsider what is distinctly human about intelligence if a machine can generate human language complete with analysis.

What Does All of This Mean for Higher Education?

It is clear that the development of large language model AI, and its growing availability to a more general audience, could significantly change higher education. It will call into question the ways in which we have used writing as, as Daniel Herman puts it, “a benchmark for aptitude and intelligence.” Generative LLM will force us to think about what we assess and how we assess it, shifting a reliance on writing to more creative assessments that require students to demonstrate application of knowledge rather than simply the ability to produce information.

Higher education is being called upon to rethink what we assess and why we assess it. We are being called upon to rethink the relationship between information, knowledge, and wisdom. When an AI can create passable prose with accurate information (something that ChatGPT and other LLM Ais still cannot yet do consistently), is it enough to ask our students to “prove” that they know the information? Or does our assessment shift to asking students to apply information, demonstrating knowledge of the subject at hand?

Higher education must rethink digital literacy and how we prepare our students for this new world of large language model AI. As we move closer to a world of hybrid work where more and more jobs involve the use of generative AI for everything from discovering new drug molecules to developing ad copy, we will need to help our students understand how to partner with AI. How do they craft a request? How do they evaluate the results of the AI? How can they leverage AI to more deeply understand the world around them? This is a new digital literacy and it goes beyond the use of statistical software application or how to craft a Google search request.

What You Can Do Right Now

In September of last year, before the release of ChatGPT, Jeff Schatten wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “It won’t be long before GPT-3, and the inevitable copycats, infiltrate the university. The technology is just too good and too cheap not to make its way into the hands of students who would prefer not to spend an evening perfecting the essay I routinely assign on the leadership style of Elon Musk.”

That time, that technology—it’s here, and higher education must decide how to respond.

In coming months we’ll do a much deeper dive on how you can respond to large language model AI but, in the interim, we would urge you to take the steps that John Warner suggests in his recent Inside Higher Ed blog, “Freaking Out About ChatGPT—Part I.”

Give students learning experiences that they are interested in and value so they are less inclined to use AI as a way for “doing an end run.”
Move away from using a single artifact, like a single exam or essay, as a measure of learning. Instead, create assessments that “take into consideration the processes and experiences of learning.”
Ask students to engage in metacognitive reflection that has them articulate what they have learned, how they have learned it, and why the knowledge is valuable.
Create assignments that require students to synthesize what they have learned and bring their own perspectives the subject.
And, finally, create assignments that integrate the technology into learning.

We also need to begin thinking about how we define academic integrity in this new age of ChatGPT and other large language model AIs. This should lead to deeper conversations with our students about academic integrity.

As Melinda Zook, a Purdue history professor puts it, “The fact is the professoriate cannot teach the way we used to. Today’s students have to take ownership over every step of the learning experience. No more traditional five paragraph essays, no more ‘read the book and write about it.” We must radically rethink our pedagogical practices for the 21^st century.

In Conclusion: Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine

In 1958, Jay Williams and Raymond Abrashkin published Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine, a children’s book about three junior high schoolers who decide to use a computer prototype to do their homework for them. When their teacher discovers their ruse and confronts Danny, he passionately defends their decision to program the computer with all of the information in their textbooks and use it to produce their homework exclaiming,

“It’s just another tool. Lots of kids do their homework on typewriters. In high school and college they teach kids to do some of their homework on slide rules. And scientists use all kinds of computers as tools for their work. So why pick on us? We’re just…just going along with the times.”

Junior high school hijinks ensue, including the sabotage of the computer by a jealous classmate and Danny heroically discovering and fixing it just as a representative from the federal government is about to leave in disgust. And, in the end, Danny and his friends recognize that in programming the computer to do their homework they have, in reality, been learning and doing their homework leading Danny to resolve not to use the computer to do their homework anymore. However, he does close the story by wondering about what a teaching machine would look like.

Reading Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine in light of ChatGPT was eerie. The story (written when Dwight Eisenhower was President) reflects current discussions about the ethics of students leveraging the latest AI innovations, especially ChatGPT and GPT 3.5.

What is the purpose of homework?
What types of assistance should students be allowed to use?
What is academic integrity and how does AI fit in to discussions about it?
Are there ways for students to use AI that do not compromise academic integrity?
What does it mean to learn?
And, finally, what is the role of the teacher in this new age of AI?

In the coming months, we’ll explore these larger issues around AI and higher education. Meanwhile, we would love to hear your thoughts on ChatGPT and other AI tools and their impact on higher education. You can send any thoughts or questions to Van Davis at vdavis@wiche.edu.

Academic Integrity, Artificial Intelligence, Higher Education Trends

Learning and Neuroplasticity

Regulations: Final Rules on Distance Education and Innovation

“Regular” and “Substantive” Interaction

Prior Definition

Updated Definition

Regular and Substantive Interaction and Alignment

Resources to Support Learning, Neuroplasticity & Regulations

WCET

Online Learning Consortium

OSCQR – SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric

INTERACT123™

Chain of Events

What’s the beef? The big juicy parts of a course!

Thank you Perfect Storm!

Social Engineering

Online, In-Person, Over the Phone

An All Too Common Scenario

What to Do, What to Do?

Be Suspicious – But Not Too Suspicious

Limit the Data You Share Online

What’s Working and What Isn’t?

Student Digital Skills: Expectations vs. Reality

So, What Now?

What Businesses Does Your Institution Serve?

What Businesses Should Your Institution Be Serving?

What is the Strength of Our Partnership(s)?

What is the Institution’s Partnership Capacity?

What Must the Institution Stop Doing?

Join Us for What’s Next

Alert your recruitment team – the arts are an asset

Leaders from the Arts are Visionary – Sasha Thackaberry

Leaders from the Arts Fail Forward – Jessica Stanfill

Leaders from the Arts Orchestrate Culture – Jamie Holcomb

Ready for Curtain Time

The Changes We Must Make

We Must Do What Is Hard

We Must Do What Students Need

We Must Hold Accountable Those Who Hold Us Accountable

Continuing to Consider the Future

Session Information

Beyond Inclusion: Teaching for civic engagement and participation

An Equity-First Approach to Postsecondary Digital Learning

Learning from Our Students: Student Perspectives on Good Teaching

Designing Online Learning as Intersectional, Entangled Commitments

Community of Practice – Strategies for Success Through Digital Learning

Registration Information

Theme 1 – Identifying the Motivations to Participate

Theme 2 – Articulating the Nature and Evolution of the Reviews

Theme 3 – Clarifying Faculty and Reviewer Roles

Theme 4 – Notifying the Student

What’s Next?

A Quick Primer and Glossary on Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence

Definitions

The Buzziest LLM AI Right Now: OpenAI’s ChatGPT and GPT 3.5

What Does All of This Mean for Higher Education?

What You Can Do Right Now

In Conclusion: Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine