Author: Lindsey Downs

The Shift in Digital Learning Modalities: Is Higher Education Ready?

By Lindsey Downs

March 30, 2023

As we travel further into this post-pandemic era, I am struck by a recurring theme. The mix of courses with digital components demanded by students and offered by institutions has changed. And this shift is having real impact on campuses.

In this post, I will reflect on that theme plus highlight a new WCET publication. This new report, released today, details the results of a survey on faculty and student desires regarding digital learning offerings and faculty readiness for the digital learning shift.

And, not to give away the ending right at the beginning of the post, but some big questions still loom:

Are we ready for the shift?
Why aren’t we talking about this shift more?

Is There a Shift? What Does it Really Mean?

Whether hearing from people in states that are big, small, east, or west, I have been in meetings over the last year where the conversations are eerily similar. For many institutions, enrollment patterns in online, hybrid, and in-person courses are not what they were pre-pandemic. The online and hybrid registrations remain higher than in pre-pandemic days. This has had some real impacts. Some senior faculty are not able to fill their course loads during in-person traditional timeframes. Some faculty and staff now live in other states. Buildings feel a bit emptier. Legislators are noticing. An accrediting team questioned an institution as to why faculty development was not keeping up with increases in digital courses. And how do we pivot student services to meet student needs where (and when) they are now?

The numbers support the idea of a shift. Phil Hill, of Phil Hill & Associates (formerly MindWires) and the publisher of the On EdTech blog, analyzed the U.S. Department of Education’s Fall Enrollment survey statistics. The graph below (used with permission) tracks the trends of fall enrollments of students taking at least one online course.

Graph showing percent of US higher ed enrollment fall 2012 - 2021, of students taking at least one online course (from IPEDS database). In 2012 the enrollment of No DE courses starts at 74.5% and at least one DE course starts at 25.5%. Students taking one online course steadily increases through 2018, then sharply increases to 74.7% in 2020 before decreasing to 60.9% in 2021. Students taking no DE courses steadily declines with a large drop in 2020 (to 25.3%).

The COVID-plagued year of 2020 was an anomaly as institutions pivoted to “emergency remote learning.” It seems apparent that many institutions reported these courses as “distance learning,” even though IPEDS instructed them not to do so. Admittedly, we might see some of that same misreporting in 2021, but colleges and universities were starting to, and please excuse me for using this phrase, “get back to normal.”

The statistical data backs the non-scientifically collected anecdotes that were forming a pattern in my mind.

What are the Perceptions of Faculty and Administrators about Flexibility in Courses?

It turns out that we asked these questions last year in WCET’s national survey of faculty and administrators regarding their agreement with definitions of digital learning terms (i.e. online, hybrid, hyflex, and in-person). In that survey, we were somewhat surprised with the overwhelming level of agreement on all the terms except for hyflex, which was the newest concept.

Agreement with digital learning definition survey - 92% agreed with the definition of in-person learning, agreed with definition of online learning, 95% with definition of HYBRID learning, and 71% with definition of HyFlex learning.

As we release our second report based on the survey, we wanted to highlight some of the additional results.

But first, WCET staff thank Jeff Seaman, Bay View Analytics, for conducting the survey, and Nicole Johnson for performing the analysis. The questions were based upon definitions Johnson developed for her organization, the Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA). Along with CDLRA, we are grateful to the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), Quality Matters, and the University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) for their assistance in soliciting respondents and disseminating the results.

Participants in this study consisted of 987 higher education faculty and 1,051 administrators representing 870 institutions from all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

The second report (released today) focuses on survey results regarding technology trends and asked some key questions about shifting perceptions and planned uses of academic technologies.

The results add more insights into faculty and staff desires regarding learning modalities.

Surveyed Statement: Students Want Greater Choice and Flexibility in How They Access Their Courses (e.g., Hyflex, Comodal, Multi-access learning)

Yes, they do. Admittedly, this is not a direct survey of students’ wants and needs, but the perceptions of faculty and administrators. It is notable that they are largely in lock step with those perceptions. More than three-quarters of all responding groups either strongly or somewhat agreed that students now seek more flexibility in how they access their courses. More than half of the non-faculty groups strongly agreed.

Surveyed Statement: Faculty Want More Flexibility in How They Deliver Their Courses

Most participants agreed that faculty want more flexibility in how they deliver their courses, although the agreement was not as pronounced as for students. It is important to note that senior administrators and faculty, themselves, were most likely to report agreement about the desire for flexibility. More than 40% of faculty strongly agreed with this statement.

Along with the anecdotes and student enrollment numbers, this survey showed both faculty and (perceived) student interest in having options beyond the traditional in-person, lecture modality.

Are We Ready for this Shift?

Another question that we asked in the survey probed the readiness of faculty for teaching in different modalities. The results of questions around faculty readiness and related questions around specific technologies they use in each modality are included in the new report released today.

Surveyed Statement: Faculty Have the Skills and Know-How to Effectively Deliver Courses in Multiple Modes

The percentage of respondents who strongly agreed with this statement was very low. The combination of strongly and somewhat agree was below half for all categories and differed by group.

Graph showing how many respondents agreed with the statement "faculty Have the Skills and Know-How to Effectively Deliver Courses in Multiple Modes." The respondents who agreed was very low compared to other statements.

From the report:

“Despite the increased use of digital resources and technology along with the desire for increased flexibility, most participants did not agree that faculty had the skills and know-how to effectively deliver courses in multiple modes. Faculty were more likely to perceive themselves as having the necessary skills and know-how than participants in other roles.”

As for the faculty not being ready, we should not flog ourselves over this result. The shift has been sudden. We are still in a bit of shock and recovery mode from the pandemic. It will be a difficult task to assure that the skills necessary to keep up with the perceived desires for both faculty and students. And this new set of skills is not solely on the shoulders of faculty, but also needs to be part of the thinking of administrators at all levels and policy-makers both inside and outside of higher education.

Why Aren’t We Talking About This Modality Shift More?

Maybe this discussion is happening on campus, but I have been surprised that this issue has been relatively absent among higher education organizations, policymakers, the press, and the public, at large.

Maybe I missed it somewhere? If it is not being discussed, I am at a loss as to why. This shift is changing college and university operations and economics…in a dramatic way for some institutions.

What is your experience?

We hope that the results from the survey report released today help fuel the discussion.

I understand that it takes time to regain our equilibrium from a sudden shift. To move forward in a world where the demand for course modalities has changed, we need to gather ourselves, collect the data, organize our thinking, and talk about it so that we can map our new direction.

Digital Learning, Distance Education, Online Learning

Policy

New SARA Reciprocity Policy Modification Process Yields Proposals Intended to Increase Student Protections

By Lindsey Downs

March 21, 2023

Providing uniform consumer protection for distance education students located in all member states is a hallmark of the interstate reciprocity agreement known as the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA). States that chose to join the agreement, often through state legislation signed by their governor, direct that the policies and procedures of the reciprocity agreement are to be followed for purposes of state institutional approval to offer distance education related activities to students located in states that are members to the reciprocity agreement.

As we reported in December, the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) is facilitating the new SARA Policy Modification Process. This process began in January 2023 with proposal submissions. This newly approved process increases transparency and public engagement to address revisions and improvements to SARA Policy to manage reciprocity and consistent oversight of participating institutions serving students in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. During the January proposal submission window, more than sixty policy modification proposals were submitted from representatives of higher education regional compacts, postsecondary institutions, higher education organizations, and consumer advocates.

Why This is Important

State authorization requirements, if any, must be met by institutions in states where students are located when the institution offers interstate distance education.
Compliance with state requirements is required by federal regulation to participate in Title IV financial aid.
Reciprocity through SARA is accepted by federal regulation as an alternative to state-by-state approval.
SARA has been represented as being a “negotiated compromise” of state requirements in SARA Policy to provide uniform oversight of institutions and protections for students in SARA member states.
SARA Policy is reviewed and revised through the SARA Policy Modification Process.
Policy proposals approved through this process could compel new compliance requirements for institutions to participate in SARA as well as provide new oversight responsibilities of SARA member states.

Short History of SARA Policy

The SARA Policy Manual was developed to implement the Unified State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement which was signed by all four regional compacts and NC-SARA. The policies and procedures found in the SARA Policy Manual provide the responsibilities of the institutions, states, regional compacts, and also NC-SARA as the entity facilitating collaboration of the regional compacts to implement SARA. Modifications to the policy have occurred since the origination of SARA as submitted to and approved by the NC-SARA Board of Directors. In June 2022, the NC-SARA Board approved the new SARA Policy Modification Process that was developed by representatives from each regional steering committee. This new process encourages opportunity for the public and state voices to improve upon SARA Policy to implement reciprocity and offer ability to enrich student consumer protections.

SARA Policy Modification Process Steps

The new SARA Policy Modification Process follows several designated steps. For 2023, we highlight several dates in the chart provided as we encourage you to participate in certain steps of the process by reviewing proposals, listening to the two public forums, and providing written comments during the 30-day comment period. From the NC-SARA Participate in SARA Policy Modifications webpage, you can access links to review the list of proposals, gain access to registration for public forums, and receive direction to submit written public comments.

Note that the final step in the annual proposal process is the release of the revised SARA Policy Manual at the end of the calendar year. My holiday wish is that the policy manual will be released in web form with a PDF-only version for download as an option.

2023 SARA Policy Modification Key Dates

January 3-February 3, 2023          Window to submit SARA Policy Modifications

March 1, 2023                                 SARA Policy Public Forum #1 (available to the public to hear proposals)

April 5, 2023                                     Deadline to amend or withdraw proposed SARA Policy modifications.

April 17 – May 17, 2023 Call for written public comments on proposed SARA Policy modifications

June 7, 2023       SARA Policy Public Forum #2 (available to the public to hear proposals)

July 5, 2023                                       Deadline to amend or withdraw proposed SARA Policy modifications

September 1, 2023                         Deadline for Regional Compacts to review and vote on proposals.

October 23-25, 2023                      NC-SARA Board vote on proposals approved by the regional compacts

December 31, 2023                        Revise SARA Policy Manual published on the NC-SARA website.

Summary of the 2023 Proposals

The central theme present in many of the submitted proposals for this 2023 policy modification proposal year is the enhanced oversight of institutions to provide increased student consumer protections. Protections should be found in clear policy language for institutions to comply in support of their students, strong state oversight of SARA participating institutions, and strong regional compact oversight of SARA member states. The proposals generally fell into several categories including:

Technical Corrections,
Definitions,
State Responsibilities, Oversight & Renewals,
Institution Eligibility, Oversight & Renewals,
Consumer Protection, and,
Coverage & Limitations of SARA (including Professional Licensure).

The largest number of proposals address the eligibility and responsibilities of the SARA participating institutions including the process and expectations for institutions when the state provides the annual participation renewal. Regional compacts and consumer advocates strongly recommend the importance of sufficient state enforcement capacity and more state specific oversight and authority by the state portal entity to hold the institutions accountable. Multiple proposals focus on the increased parameters if the state places an institution on provisional status. Additionally, several proposals suggest the need for transparency on the NC-SARA website to share the status of SARA participation, if the institution is placed on provisional status, as well as to provide student complaint data for each SARA participating institution.

Other proposals suggest revisions to professional licensure notification language and several, including one of our proposals, address removal/replacement of the C-RAC Guidelines. Additionally, we submitted a proposal to the Definition section to define “Explanatory Note,” in order to address the authority of advisory language that has not been vetted and approved through the SARA Policy Modification Process. Another of our proposals suggests increased regional compact oversight, including authority to place a state on monitored provisional status under certain circumstances when functional responsibilities are not met by a state. Conversely, another proposal suggested extending the regional compacts’ reviews of member states for membership renewal from biennially to every five years.

First SARA Policy Proposal Public Forum

A woman participating with a video conference on a laptop. — *Photo by Anna Shvets from Pexels*

Two weeks ago, approximately half of the proposals were presented by their submitters in a livestream public forum hosted by NC-SARA. Submitters were allotted three minutes to publicly share their proposed language and offer the rationale and importance of their proposal. Many submitters requested viewers reach out to them to offer suggestions for improvements for their proposed language. Submitters may amend their proposals and participate in a second public forum later in the spring.

While submitters of proposals offered the rationale for their language in the written proposal submission form during the initial proposal period, the verbal presentation, in many cases, offered the opportunity to share additional context and motivation for the proposed language. Additionally, some submitters provided support data and explained the interrelationship of multiple proposals on related policy.

The Next Steps in the Process and How to Participate

Consider providing a written comment during the public comment period April 17-May 17, 2023. In order to prepare a written comment, institutions and other interested parties should review the list of policy proposals to determine which proposals may be particularly applicable to your role in the SARA ecosystem. The list of proposals identifies the proposal name, affected SARA Policy sections, and the organization name. We think proposals of note to review include those:

addressing enforcement of state consumer protection laws,
ensuring states’ enforcement capacity,
related to C-RAC/21^st Century Guidelines,
related to professional licensure, and,
multiple proposals addressing institutional provisional status.

Please consider these proposals and determine how each policy change could positively or negatively impact students or your role as associated with the implementation of the SARA agreement.

A second public forum will take place on June 7th following the public comment period. The submitters will have an opportunity to consider the written comments and revise their proposals in advance of the second public forum for which we encourage you to register and attend. During the public forum, many submitters are likely to express their interest in direct feedback from listeners offering you another opportunity to share questions, concerns, or support for the proposal(s) before the final deadline to amend proposals.

Conclusion

Your input is important to this process. The opportunity for increased participation was intentionally placed into the new modification process in order to hear voices of all stakeholders affected by SARA Policy.

Green oval with the text "comment" and a comment bubble icon

In regard to public comments, we would like to share some advice. Your constructive comments are essential! Submitters will appreciate comments in support as well as comments that address questions and concerns about their proposals. The comments will be available for public review on the NC-SARA website.

If you comment on behalf of your institution or organization, make sure you have the authority to do so. If you comment as an individual, you can’t use your institution or organization letterhead. You can supply your name, title, and employer as context as an indicator or your experience on the topic. Remember this is your importunity to provide input to SARA policy. If you have questions, concerns, or just need clarity, please raise them!

SAN and WCET will continue to share more information as we watch and participate in this first year of the new SARA Policy Modification Process. Watch for us to share more soon!

Distance Education, Managing Digital Learning, Professional Licensure, SAN, SARA, State Authorization, State Authorization Network, Student Success

Practice

Indigenous Ways of Knowing, a Faculty’s Journey to Redesign Native American Art Online Course

By Lindsey Downs

March 16, 2023

Each year, I have the honor of coordinating the WCET Awards initiative.

The goal of our awards program is to highlight those doing great work in higher education digital learning. I feel so lucky to get the chance each year to learn about the meaningful, student-focused work being done by various institutions, organizations, and individuals in our community.

We’re looking forward to beginning our awards program for 2023, with some new updates to our process and winner showcase! To kick off the our work on WCET Awards for this year, I’m so thrilled to showcase our winners from the 2022 season. We will be doing so here on the Frontiers Blog and episodes on the Frontiers Podcast!

Today we are featuring one of the winners of the WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award, which recognizes outstanding efforts by member institutions and organizations in applying innovative solutions to a challenging educational need.

Today we showcase Nicolet College’s Native American Art Course Redesign. Artist and Art Instructor Nate Wilson discusses the inspiration for the redesign, the partnership between course instructor, instructional design team, and an Elder from one of the Native American tribes in the area. The resulting course honored Native culture and provided students with great learning and artistic experiences. Both Nate, instructional designer Di Wu, and Uncle Ernie, the Elder on the design team, join me for an upcoming Frontiers podcast to discuss the project further. Thank you to all of you for this work, this post, and the upcoming episode!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

The Place

Nicolet College is a small rural college that serves a large geographical area in northern Wisconsin or “the north woods.” Located on the edge of Rhinelander, the campus buildings are spread through a beautiful expanse of forest and along the Lake Julia shoreline. The location is lovely; deer frequently walk with their wary-eyed glances across the lawn or through a parking lot, you can see the occasional fox or porcupine, and once in a while, a black bear will wander out of the woods.

The Challenge

The previous iteration of the Native American Art course offered at Nicolet College was online, but the design and content did not adequately meet our aspiration to have truly inclusive and culturally appropriate courses. Our goal was to work with local art experts and tribal members to create a course that honored Native American artists and ways of learning and knowing.

The Solution

The project was to rebuild an existing Native American Art course being offered by Nicolet College. As the only full-time art faculty at the college, much of this work fell to me, Nate Wilson, Fine Arts Instructor. While I’m mostly a studio arts guy, drawing, sculpture, painting, and the like, I do have some art history background, both in the classroom and taking students abroad to London. Still, because I’m not Native American, I felt quite nervous about attempting this project. Fortunately, the completion of the project wasn’t just on me; there was a team.

The Team

Ernie St Germain, Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwe tribal elder, and our Native American art expert, affectionately known as Uncle Ernie, made this project work. Without his guidance, we would have been lost.

While acknowledging that this region of northern Wisconsin was historically all native peoples’ land, relative to many places in the country, there is still a significant amount of recognized tribal lands in the area served by Nicolet College. Many native people live among the abundant lakes, rivers, forests, and towns of the area served by Nicolet College, many belonging to one of the tribes listed at wisconsinfirstnations.org include Forest County Potawatomi, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and Ho-Chunk Nation. Part of the impetus for redoing the course was related to an ongoing grant-funded effort at Nicolet College called Many Ways of Knowing, now known as Indigenous Ways of Knowing. This year-long endeavor has been to better honor the learning methods, knowledge, and traditions and engage with our local indigenous partners and neighbors. This also provided some direction for what a newly made Native American Art course should be like.

How it Started

The initial meeting was in person and included Laura Wind-Norton, then Dean of University Transfer and Liberal Arts, who deserves much credit for organizing the project and team. Susie Crazy Thunder, Tribal Outreach Coordinator, should also be recognized for her contribution, which included an introduction to Uncle Ernie.

Woman in Native outfit sitting in front of a plains background with a cow skull next to her and an inflatable elk behind her. — *Fall, from the Four Seasons series, 2006, by Wendy Red Star. American Artscape Magazine*

Our subsequent meetings were attended by Uncle Ernie, me, and usually Di Wu, Instructional Designer for the college. We would meet a few times a month, typically virtual, beginning with Boozhoo (meaning ‘Greetings’ in Ojibwe). Then much of the time was spent talking about life, family, recent things, historical events, and other topics.

Even when we attended more directly to the official business or purpose of the meeting, Uncle Ernie would tell us stories. Being humble, he would probably describe himself as a cultural advisor to the project; he was much more than that. Uncle Ernie has a story to tell about everything; he’s a skilled and university-trained artist, a very accomplished athlete, a Judge, a professor, a bunch of other stuff, and a fantastic storyteller. These meetings were great and quite fun but sometimes more contemplative. We’re lucky that Di is good about being punctual and would end the meeting at the appointed times. Otherwise, they might have gone on forever.

I would often come prepared with questions or dilemmas to inquire about. In response, Uncle Ernie would usually tell more stories. Even when he wasn’t teaching or guiding the project through storytelling, Uncle Ernie rarely told me directly what to do. Instead, he would ask me about my life and my experiences. Which was challenging and, I’ll admit, a bit confusing because I’m not Native American and don’t have the lived experience of being native.

Our Design Process and Tools

After spending enough time with, listening to, and getting to know Uncle Ernie, the general shape, structure, and content for the course started to form. Di, in his role as Instructional Designer, facilitated the curriculum design process, which was a lot. Uncle Ernie would review and offer feedback, often in the form of more stories. He also provided some specific resources like articles or links to other helpful information.

Course Materials

I selected a book that would serve as one of the main sources of content for the course, a “textbook” I suppose, although not a typical one. Uncle Ernie told me he strongly approved the selection, but only after I committed to using the book for the class and the bookstore started ordering copies. I had tried to ask him directly about the book on a few occasions prior but didn’t get a reassuring response till the choice was made. The book is Hearts of Our People: Native Women Artists, edited and coauthored by Jill Ahlberg Yohe and Teri Greeves. This book contains a wealth of diverse perspectives, historical and contemporary views and issues, fantastic images, and writings by many artists or by artists about artists. The fact that the book featured only women artists was a problem that wasn’t difficult to remedy with the inclusion of other resources.

Cindy Domaika, Manager of Open & Inclusive Academics for Nicolet College, helped find a great supplementary text, Native Peoples of North America, by Susan Stebbins of the University at Albany. This book is available as an Open Educational Resource (OER) through Open SUNY Textbooks, which makes it free to students. Additionally, Cindy contributed the idea and assisted with the creation of another textbook that exists as an online Pressbook, evolves, and is built through the research, writings, and other contributions provided by the students. This student-created OER owns the creative commons license meaning other college-level instructors or students can use, adopt, or edit it for free.

From the beginning, I perceived that my role was to create a class that followed the guidance provided by Uncle Ernie, and I came to understand that would be a class that that wasn’t beholden to some of the typical tropes, such as a western art historical orientation, timeline, and perspective. It also needed to be deliverable through the means available, in this case, fully online and asynchronous. In my attempts to find a way to do this, I learned a few things that helped. Perhaps the most important of these insights was that the art itself contained the content needed for the class.

Learning Through Art Itself

It became increasingly apparent to me that everything that should be taught in a university-level course on Native American art could be found in the art made by native artists. Students learn by directly engaging with the art, looking at and studying the phenomenal artworks, objects, clothing, paintings, sculptures, jewelry, structures, pottery, and function items, and this list could go on much longer, made long ago, recently, or today. Additionally, there is an abundance of writings, interviews, films, articles, books, and a wide variety of resources created by the artists or about the artists that are made available and conveniently accessible for students in an online class.

My only job was to find, organize, arrange, and then build lesson plans around the chosen resources. While this did prove to be a very time-consuming and arduous means of creating the curriculum, once students were enrolled and started participating in the class, their engagement was encouraging and provided some valuable real-time feedback.

Student Reflection and Projects

One of the biggest surprises was the quality of students’ journal entries. Worth a negligible number of points and was only intended as means of encouraging and accounting for the reading and study of resources; what I expected was perfunctory lists and summaries. Instead, what I found in the student journaling submissions were paragraphs and sometimes pages of writing that were insightful, introspective, creative, nuanced, unrestrained, and frequently quite passionate. Students recorded their discoveries, explored their ideas, and deployed critical thinking in words that were sometimes messy jumbles and other times carefully crafted prose.

As a result, the journaling component of the course continues to evolve. My first idea has been to tie the ideas and writings from the journaling more directly to the formal essay-writing component of the class. So far, that has yielded mixed results, so I will continue experimenting and perhaps determine that it’s best just to leave it alone.

Born directly from Uncle Ernie’s wisdom and direction, I created a class project called the “Heritage Project.” Creating art with your own hands is one of the course requirements, and for this several-weeks long project, students explore their own background and heritage. While this is usually through family and family history, the wording in the assignment makes it clear that each student is free to define “heritage” for themselves.

Following their own heritage research, students determine a medium and process for creating an artwork that embodies, celebrates, or otherwise captures the essence of their own personal heritage. While some are native, most students are not and don’t identify with a native heritage. Because of this, they are not trying to copy or replicate Native American art. They are making their own art about their own heritage while, along the way, being guided by a wealth of examples of works by the native artist that they’re learning about. After completion, the students are further prompted to reflect on how creating their own art, about themselves and their heritage, provided more insights into Native American Art. This has proved to be one of the most successful aspects of the course, which I attribute directly to the wisdom and guidance provided by Uncle Ernie. Miigwech, Uncle Ernie.

I’d like to end this post with a comment left by a student in a discussion board thread for her classmates to read:

“Part of why I went back to school after 15 years away is so that I could be a good example for my children. This was a class where they also were interested in the class material, so I took them with me to my site visit for my paper, and they regularly looked through artist’s pages and weekly class materials. This has been a great way for me to connect with them, too. We’re all going to Washington DC over summer break for vacation and when we were planning out which museums to go to, they wanted to go to the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian… purely based on things that they saw from this class. I love that so much, and it helps me to feel that the many nights of hard work and falling asleep at my laptop turning in homework (especially for some other classes that I struggled with) have been worth it. That extra connection is absolutely priceless to me.”

Distance Education, Online Learning, Student Success, WCET Awards, WOW Award

Policy

OPM and Third-Party Servicers Update; Your Turn to Inform the Department of Ed

By Lindsey Downs

March 14, 2023

The U.S. Department of Education is listening! Their February 15 press release (see our post about it) provides opportunities to inform the Department on two separate but related topic areas. We hope that you will take one or more of the opportunities described below to ask questions, share the impacts on students, and generally apprise the Department of practical information about the use of OPM’s and Third-Party Servicers at your institution.

In today’s post we will provide updates on what WCET and SAN have been doing on this issue and advise you (and urge you) to participation in this process. The topics include:

Updates on Online Program Management (OPM), including a synopsis of the Department’s listening sessions, what we are hearing from members, and previews of our comment to the Department.
Third-Party Servicers (TPS), including reactions from others to the third-party servicer guidance and urging for you to comment.
Directions on the opportunities to provide feedback and the processes to participate.

Online Program Management Update

Synopsis of the Department’s Listening Sessions on OPM Incentive Compensation

Virtual listening sessions were hosted by the Department on March 8-9, 2023. Participants pre-registered to provide three-minute statements on their experiences with OPMs. They also gave their opinion on whether or not to maintain, revise, or rescind the “bundled services” exception to the statutory ban on incentive compensation provided in the 2011 Dear Colleague letter (DCL GEN-11-05). The sessions were open for public viewing. More than sixty-five individuals offered testimony falling into these general categories: consumer advocacy organizations, institution staff, former students, and OPM representatives.

It appeared that the testimony gave a split in the interest whether to maintain or rescind the bundled services exception. Based upon the testimony, it is clear that not all OPMs are created equal nor provide the same level of transparency, services, and coordination with the institutions.

Many institution representatives spoke passionately about incentive compensation providing the ability to serve a wider range of non-traditional students who benefit from the online opportunities. They believe that the institution would not have otherwise had the initial financial capability to develop the programs. Additionally, the testimony from some public institutions indicated that incentive compensation gave them the opportunity to compete with for-profit institutions that have the capital upfront to develop their online programs. This provides students more choice. Other positive responses from students and institutions showed that a strong institutional relationship with the OPM is needed to provide a clear structure for control by the institution and transparency to the students. One OPM, Academic Partnership, was positively represented by many who highlighted that this company was an example of an OPM that develops a well-coordinated relationship with the institution and helped the institution provide programs for which the students shared met important needs. In those situations, it was shared that the institution maintained important control over decision-making in the relationship.

On the other hand, there was a strong contingent of consumer advocates and students that brought up the darker side of incentive compensation. They cited predatory practices in recruiting, practices that border on misrepresentation, and potential higher debt for students. Several students expressed their dismay with the lack of transparency of an OPM that, to all appearances was staffed by the institutions, when in actuality they were staffed by an OPM. In some cases the instructors were employed by the OPM and not the institution. The result appeared to be inferior education at a higher cost. Additionally, in some situations it appears that the financial split within a bundled service showed that a significant potion went to recruiting and marketing as opposed to supporting education and student services.

There were some advocates of a middle ground. They asked the Department not to throw the bundled services exception out completely, but to include more guardrails. There were suggestions of ensuring institution choice and concern the rescission could cause more harm than good for student outcomes. This moderate view appears to consider that some OPMs play by the rules and act in a more transparent manner. This group hopes that revising the language will result in pulling the errant OPMs back in line.

Honestly, the biggest takeaway is that institutions should not cede control to OPMs. Institutions must be assertive in their contract development. The lack of transparency of some OPMs as shared by a few former students who provided testimony, was truly shady. OPMs that do not provide for collaboration and flexibility with their contracts should not be considered. There are other options.

WCET Members Respond to Our Survey on Their OPM Experiences

Thank you to the WCET members who responded to our recent survey about your experiences with OPMs. Our questions were fashioned with the intention of responding to the Department of Education’s interest in rules regarding oversight of “incentive compensation” vs “fee-for-service” fiscal models. By obtaining input from members on the front lines, our comment to the Department about the envisioned changes will be much stronger. The feedback is very valuable.

Amidst the polarizing discussions around these services, it is not surprising that our members have varying experiences and have more nuanced outlooks. Below are a few highlights of what we learned through the responses.

Advantages and Disadvantages of OPMs

Some benefited from their OPM partnership:

“As a small state school, we simply do not have the funds to take on all the risk in a fee-for-service at one time.”

Another felt that it helped to keep their content refreshed in the face of the ‘Great Resignation.’ One respondent felt that the relationship set them up to move beyond the contract and bring the supports in-house.

One respondent disliked the revenue-sharing model “because it means an institution continues to pay for a service even when it was a one-time activity (such as online course development) and as enrollment grows, it means the school pays more for it.”

Several members indicated that the length of their revenue-share contracts is problematic and that they would prefer either a shorter contract or increased opportunities to get out of contracts early. Several members expressed frustration with a lack of transparency on the part of the OPM, especially around lead generation and the OPM’s activities with potential competitor institutions.

One institution has existing contracts for both revenue-sharing and fee-for-service: “The revenue-share makes it easier and quicker to enter the market (launch a program) but we lose transparency with the operations and revenue. The fee-for-service agreement was harder to get started (required university buy-in, investment, scaling operations), but it has given us a window into what is required to properly manage online programs, and, therefore, we are able to future plan to bring some of the workstreams in-house. We’re learning how to fish.”

What Should the Department Be Regulating (or Not)?

When asked “What regulations, rules, or contractual agreements would hamper your OPM experience?” institutional responses included:

A desire for open access to OPM contracts in order to better educate all institutional stakeholders as well as ensure greater competitiveness across institutions.
Caps on the initial revenue-share agreement length and fees.
Consistent federal student data handling guidelines.
Allow revenue-sharing for just recruitment rather than all bundled service. Although there was some disagreement as some institutions desire revenue-share options just for recruitment practices and others suggest removing the incentive compensation exception entirely.

When asked “What regulations, rules, or contractual arrangements would hamper your OPM experience?” institutional responses included a discussion of the restraints regulations can cause:

One institution advised: “We need some freedom to structure agreements in a way that makes sense for both parties but encourages regular checks, transparency in reporting, and in strategies being employed.”
Another said: “Regulations that needlessly require more data. We generate data reports after data reports, and nobody ever reads this stuff. We generate enough data that serves no purpose other than giving a lot of people jobs.”

Other Issues We Will Highlight in Our Comment

One question we included in our survey hints at the interest in setting limits on the amount spent on marketing by institutions. We are skeptical that a fair formula can be devised. As higher education becomes increasingly competitive, institutions unable to appropriately invest in marketing for their programs, especially their online programs, may be placed at a disadvantage when competing with larger, better resourced institutions.

There also seems to be interest in regulating the tuition and fees charged by institutions using OPMs. First, it is difficult to compare the price students pay for an engineering vs. a philosophy degree at one institution, never mind across institutions. Also, our previous research shows that the price at public institutions is often set by their boards without reflection on the cost to build and offer the program.

An observation that we have made is that institutions need strong leadership to manage an OPM. If there is a change, colleges and universities will need time to transition to a new model.

And one final quote on using OPMs: “It is a complete win/win for everyone—universities, OPMs, but most importantly STUDENTS. This is not to say that there aren’t some tyrannical practices by OPMs. I’m sure there are. But that has not been our experience. Our OPM is made up of decent, caring human beings who want to help students and universities thrive.”

Discussions With Others About Third-Party Servicers

Since the release of the Third-Party Servicers (TPS) guidance by the Department of Education, we have been following the interpretations from law firms, higher education membership agencies, corporations, and state and institution leaders. The two of us have had discussions with representatives from each of these perspectives.

Some of what we have heard:

Confusion. There is still confusion about what problem is being addressed and which services will be included in the future. There is additional confusion about the Department’s February 15 announcement bundling the TPS Guidance with (to us) what is a separate call for comments regarding OPM’s and the use of incentive compensation. Even last week, we heard a law firm refer people to the OPM listening sessions to give feedback on the TPS guidance.
Agreement On the ‘Big Impact’ of this Guidance.” Even organizations that tend to be more neutral on federal issues, such as the National Association of State Financial Aid Administrators, cite the guidance as having been an massive expansion of previous rules and resulting in a big impact on institutions and students.
Surprise by the Department of Education on the ‘Big Impact’. While we have not talked to Department personnel, we have talked to several others who told us that those who created the guidance are greatly surprised at the higher education reaction that this is a big change. There have been rumors that the Department may need to issues clarifications and/or change the guidance.
The Five Stages of Grief. As you may recall, there is the theory of the “five stages of grief” for individuals who are grieving or given a terminal diagnosis. Those stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Most to whom we talked are in some combination of the initial few stages. Some are firmly planted in denial. To one who gave reasoning about why it would not affect them, we could not help but blurt out: “good luck with that.” Probably more troubling is that many are in the pre-denial stage and would rather not deal with it until forced to do so.

While you may wish to journey through the stages of grief, we advise you that this guidance provides the new Departmental expectations or institutions…until they change them. We hope that they provide more guidance, but we suggest that you do not sleep on these requirements.

Our Take on Third-Party Servicers Guidance

textbox: It is not hyperbole to indicate that this expansion of TPS Guidance could have a dramatic impact on how the institution and its vendors are managing their contracts and services.

This guidance is widely viewed as a significant expansion of functions that are to be considered as provided by a Third-Party Servicer. If so categorized, the service is subject to additional regulatory oversight which includes reporting, annual audits, and program reviews. Additionally, the vendor as a Third-Party Servicer becomes subject to joint and several liability and subject to consequences as provided in Federal regulation along with the institution, if found out of compliance. It is not hyperbole to indicate that this expansion of TPS Guidance could have a dramatic impact on how the institution and its vendors are managing their contracts and services.

The definition of a Third-Party Servicer as provided in Federal regulation appears to be expanded through the new guidance by leaning heavily on the phrase, “any aspect”, in regulation, as related to the institution’s participation in Title IV. Many questions have arisen about the reach of this new expanded view of Third-Party Servicers as new areas in this guidance. In addition to OPMs, other entities that could be included within this expanded definition includes clinical sites, state agencies collaborating as a consortium, study abroad organizations, providers of student support services including mental health counseling, textbook publishers. The list could go on and on until we get clear guidance.

Please Participate in this Feedback Process

It is critical that the Department hears from all stakeholders. Clear, practical, and student-focused regulations and guidance can only be developed when the full picture of implications is shared with the Department. The goal is to ensure that institutions know the path to compliance so as students are ultimately protected.

OPM Comments Need to Be Submitted This Week

First, there is still time to submit written public comments regarding the management of compensation for OPMs. Although the virtual listening sessions have concluded, the deadline for written public comments will be accepted through March 16, 2023. WCET members were sent additional member-only advice on commenting. If you are a member of WCET or SAN and did not receive this content, please reach out to us at wcetinfo@wiche.edu.

The Department is seeking better understanding of the impact of the bundled services exception of the 2011 guidance (DCL GEN-11-05) related to growing online enrollment and its association with Federal student loan dept. In the Department’s announcement they requested responses to nine questions addressing the institution compensation structure when working with an OPM. You may wish to review our thoughts and direction on these questions in our recent post as you develop your written public comment.

Third-Party Servicers Official Comments are Due March 3o

Second, the Department extended the deadline to provide public comment for the recently released updated Third-Party Servicer Guidance.

The public is invited to submit written comments regarding this guidance. This is an important opportunity to ask questions and share with the Department any concerns about vendor functions and liability, student impact, institution contract development, and any other unintended consequences that you uncover based upon the guidance. If you did not have enough time to submit a public comment about OPM arrangements, you may wish to consider that OPMs are a type of Third-Party Servicer and that your questions are relevant for this written comment period. It is through this feedback that the Department can be better informed about the parameters of these vendor relationships and the role they play to better educate students.

The Department indicated that they will consider the comments and publish any relevant changes based upon that feedback at a later date. Additionally, they indicated that they are particularly interested in comments that address the impact of continuing the limitation on institution contracting with third-party servicers that are outside the United States or owned by those that are not citizen. The Department expressed concern about their ability to hold these servicers liable, if necessary.

The deadline for this public comment period is March 30, 2023 through regulations.gov (Docket ID ED-2022-OPE-0103).

If You Don’t Want to Formally Comment, Ask Questions. And You Should!

The path to ask the Department to assess an undetermined entity is right here! Institutions are instructed that if they are unsure whether an individual or entity is to be reported as a TPS and subject to TPS requirements to contact the Department’s School Participation Division at CaseTeams@ed.gov. We strenuously urge you to take the Department’s suggestion to contact them! They have not published a deadline for these questions.

Conclusion

As always, we include advice related to participating in public comments. If you comment on behalf of your institution or organization, make sure you have the authority to do so. If you comment as an individual, you can’t use your institution or organization letterhead. You can supply your name, title, and employer as context as an indicator or your experience on the topic. Remember that your voice is important. If you have questions, concerns, or just need clarity, please raise these to the Department!

For more information on this issue, please register and join SAN, WCET, & Phil Hill, publisher of PhilOnEdTech blog and Partner at MindWires, LLC., at 2pm ET on March 20, 2023 for a special virtual event that is open to the public. Our webinar, Third-Party Servicer Guidance: Update, What Do We Know, and Why You Should Comment, will provide the opportunity for us to share what we know, address and collect your questions, and suggest why you should provide a public comment. Please join us!

And watch for more updates from WCET and its State Authorization Network.

Distance Education, Managing Digital Learning, Online Learning, OPMs, Regulation, SAN, State Authorization Network, U.S. Department of Education

Policy

Defining Distance Education in Policy: Announcement and Call to Action

By Lindsey Downs

March 7, 2023

As previewed in a fall WCET Frontiers post, WCET and SAN have been conducting an analysis of “distance education” definitions used by federal agencies, states, accreditors, and others. The purpose of this review is to highlight the challenges and risks associated with navigating multiple sources of “distance education” definitions in policy. We are happy to share the publication of Defining “Distance Education” in Policy: Differences Among Federal, State, and Accreditation Agencies. Today’s post will review the report and share our key observations regarding this topic.

Navigating numerous, different definitions and applications of those definitions presents complications when it comes to developing institutional policies, procedures, standards, or guidelines. Reconciling these challenges is important as noncompliance could put institutions at risk of a variety of consequences including loss of access to student financial aid, repayment of student aid, accreditor sanctions, and others.

As we mentioned, the report is available on the WCET website today. Included in this report is a sampling of policies, and while it is not an exhaustive list, the review does highlight some of the more significant variations from federal, state, institutional accreditation agencies, professional accrediting agencies, and other national sources. We are also excited to discuss some of the key insights from the report with WCET members at this month’s Closer Conversation.

Image - WCET Closer Conversation information. Digital Learning and Distance Ed Definitions March 31, 12:00 PM. host info.

Key Observation #1:

Definitions are used for a variety of purposes and multiple definitions of distance education may exist within the same organization or institution.

Many readers will be familiar with the definition of distance education used for Title IV financial aid purposes by the United States Department of Education (ED) at 34 CFR 600.2 and the statute on which ED regulations are founded, the Higher Education Act (HEA). However, those are not the only definitions of distance education that exist within their purview. ED-related definitions provide three different reference points and contain their own unique elements for institutions, organizations, and policymakers to understand, reconcile, and manage.

U.S. Department of ED Definition –
Three Variations
1. Accreditation
Review programs that are 'in whole or in part' offered via distance education
2. Financial Aid Eligibility
Uses 'regular and substantive interaction'

3. IPEDS Data
Course where instruction 'delivered exclusively via distance education'

Not only are there three different definitions, but the variations in expectations are wide-reaching. At one extreme is a minimal “in whole or in part” as a distance threshold. At the other extreme is to count only those courses “delivered exclusively via distance education” with a few exceptions. As a result, the same course or program could be classified differently depending on which ED definition is applied at that moment.

Some organizations provide multiple sub-definitions related to distance education. For example, the Council on Social Work Education provides definitions of distance education generally, but also online, broadcast site, and correspondence. Furthermore, some organizations provide definitions not only of distance education, but of distance education courses and of distance education programs. For example, the National Association of School Psychologists defines both distance-delivered courses and distance-delivered programs with different thresholds of percentages that would constitute a distance-delivered course (at least 75% of the instruction) or a distance-delivered program (50% or more of the required courses). Further, the Higher Learning Commission defines distance education courses (75% instruction uses distance education technologies) and distance education programs (offered “in whole or in part” through distance education) with different thresholds as well.

Additionally, there are cases where the same agency applies the concept of distance education in greatly different ways depending on the purpose of each specific compliance or data requirement. Going back to the three ED definitions in play, where each definition is used for different purposes:

Financial aid – The definition of distance education at 34 CFR 600.2 uses “regular and substantive interaction” to distinguish distance education from correspondence education for purposes of Title IV eligibility.
Accreditation – The definition 34 CFR 668.8(m) requires programs that are “in whole or in part” offered via distance education to be reviewed and accredited by an agency that has accreditation of distance education within its scope of recognition.
Data reporting – The National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education System (IPEDS) defines distance education, distance education course, and distance education program for purposes of reporting exclusively distance education enrollments.

As you can see, the thresholds range from a minimal one for accreditation to a steep one for IPEDS data reporting. In between is the financial aid “regular and substantive” measure, which requires meeting multiple criteria.

What does this mean?

Essentially, it means that when reviewing definitions, institutions must carefully note the purpose and application of the definition, and not assume that one organizational definition will apply in all scenarios.

Key Observation #2:

Definitions in policy may not align with definitions in practice and institutions may choose strategies that best balance the spirit of compliance, institutional efficiency, and transparency.

A common theme we saw in definitions was around the physical separation of students and instructors, but the challenges lie in the variations that follow. For example, the threshold or specificity of the percentage of coursework or instruction that would constitute distance education varied significantly from organization to organization (and sometimes from within the same organization).

The reasons for these policy variations may not always be clear and this presents challenges to how different institutional stakeholders (i.e. institutional staff, faculty, students) may understand distance education. Some institutions utilize multiple definitions due to either various compliance or reporting requirements or based on the audience to whom it is communicated. For example, a more technical definition may be used for faculty or instructional designers, whereas a short, simplistic definition may be used for students.

As part of navigating numerous external definitions, institutions must find ways to implement, synthesize, and communicate those definitions to different stakeholders. Furthermore, depending on the source and purpose of the definition, multiple institutional offices or departments may reference one or more of those definitions. For example, going back to the three ED definitions, the definition of 34 CFR 600.2 used for financial aid eligibility would most likely be referenced by instructional designers and faculty or compliance staff. The definition used at 34 CFR 668.8(m) used for accreditation review is most likely to be used by an accreditation liaison or institutional research or academic planning department. Meanwhile, the IPEDS definition is most likely to be used by institutional research or compliance staff.

What this does is decentralize the interpretations of these definitions, increase the number of individual interpretations, and increase the chances of misunderstanding or miscommunications. Furthermore, it becomes a balancing act for institutions to develop systems or institutional definitions to meet the needs of external stakeholders (i.e., regulators, accreditors) and institutional stakeholders, especially critically the needs of students.

For example, when ED began collecting distance education enrollment counts, WCET staff heard from institutional researchers confused by the IPEDS survey definitions. Some admitted that they reported the same enrollment numbers to the state, accrediting agency, and IPEDS, even though there were different thresholds as to which enrollments should be counted as distance education. Though there is risk in misreporting data, they ultimately decided that issues of institutional credibility and efficiency outweighed the risk. Collecting and reporting distance education enrollment data to align with multiple contradictory definitions would require multiple data fields, course codes, data analysts to run queries and ensure accuracy of the data reports, and IT staff time to develop the data fields and course codes. This may have worked its way out over time.

Textbox:

Institutional collaboration and agreement are key. In the case of navigating these competing definitions, bring stakeholders together to weigh institutional risk and priorities, operationalize compliance management, and ensure clear messaging to students.

Furthermore, for institutions offering distance education outside of the institution’s home state, knowing where distance education is taking place is critical to out-of-state activity management and many compliance staff have developed procedures to ask students for their location at the time of enrollment. These procedures may or may not align with how exclusively distance education enrollment data is collected for IPEDS and it is very possible that those data could differ slightly. However, for expediency purposes, institutions that participate in state authorization reciprocity through the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) report IPEDS data to fulfill their SARA data reporting obligations.

There are reasons that different entities may have varying perspectives on how to define distance education in policy, but those differences can create contradictions that challenge institutions practically. For example, for purposes of Title IV eligibility, Congress and the ED felt it was important to distinguish between distance education and correspondence education. However, other organizations may not feel the need to distinguish between the two and may view them as falling into the same overall bucket in terms of modality. For example, the definition of online instruction in the District of Columbia incorporates the terms “Correspondence Course” and “Distance Learning” in its definition. Additionally, the Council on Social Work Education provides definitions of distance education generally but includes correspondence as a subcategory within that definition in policy.

What does this mean?

Interinstitutional collaboration and agreement are important work. In the case of navigating these competing definitions, institutions should bring stakeholders together to weigh institutional risk and priorities, discuss ways in which the institution could operationalize or maximize administrative efficiencies, and reduce disparate or confusing messaging to students. Ensure course codes, course descriptions, and policy definitions are clear to students, so they know what they need to be successful in the course.

Key Observation #3:

In developing definitions of distance education, it would be helpful to review and possibly reference already existing definitions. However, this should be done with caution to avoid interpretative differences.

In reviewing other sources of distance education definitions, a common theme was a reference back to and incorporation of one of the federal HEA and Title IV definitions. It is not surprising that institutional accreditors tend to cite or model distance education definitions in their own policies and procedures after one or more of HEA and Title IV definitions, since they must abide by certain federal provisions to maintain status as a Department-recognized accreditor.

What does this mean?

Textbox: There are reasons that different entities may have varying perspectives on how to define distance education in policy, but those differences can create contradictions that challenge institutions practically. Always be mindful of the perspective of the agency that is enforcing the policy at hand.

Citing and referencing those provisions, as applicable, makes sense for consistency and clarity. These references also have the benefit of synthesizing the definitions used and minimizing variations in language. For any organization considering what definition of distance education to create or adopt, it would be helpful to review and possibly reference or adopt an existing definition from another entity. However, there is the potential for further confusion depending on how the definitions are cited and used.

However, an issue could arise when two agencies are interpreting the same language. This was recently observed with the interpretation of new requirements for “regular and substantive interaction.” WCET staff noted an interpretation of “direct instruction” to include asynchronous instruction by an accrediting agency and institutions informing faculty based on the accreditor’s language. An alternate interpretation by Department personnel was shared with WCET staff in a letter that is summarized in a previous blog post.

Conflicting interpretations could pose grave challenges when the institutional is subject to a financial aid review or audit.

When it comes to understanding policy, it is important for institutions to note that policies may be developed by a constituency with a different perspective and should note where a policy interpretation from one agency may differ from your own. Though the term “direct instruction” could reasonably be understood differently based on the audience and technical training of those doing such interpretation, it is important to be mindful of the interpretation and perspective of the agency that is enforcing the policy.

Conclusion

quote box: Policy will not always fit practice and it will take a concerted efforts by institutions, and federal, state, and accrediting policies to ensure protection of students that are engaged in these technologies.

As reflected in the cited WCET-sponsored survey done by Bayview Analytics with analysis conducted by Nicole Johnson (Executive Director, Canadian Digital Learning Research Association), higher education has moved beyond distinct categories to a spectrum of use of digital technologies. And as summarized here in this post and in our new report, policy will not always fit practice and it will take a concerted efforts by institutions, and federal, state, and accrediting policies to ensure protection of students that are engaged in these technologies.

In the end, we have policies that are trying to delineate courses and programs into tight little packages with names. Unfortunately, digital and distance learning are now in a world where the use of educational technologies, synchronous meetings, and in-person sessions are on a spectrum lacking solid boundaries. We’re trying to harness the ocean, but the waves keep coming in.

We want to hear what further questions, issues, or considerations you have so that we can consider and address those questions in future research.

We look forward to your feedback and observations.

Distance Education, Managing Digital Learning, Regulation, SAN, State Authorization

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

Is There a Shift? What Does it Really Mean?

What are the Perceptions of Faculty and Administrators about Flexibility in Courses?

Surveyed Statement: Students Want Greater Choice and Flexibility in How They Access Their Courses (e.g., Hyflex, Comodal, Multi-access learning)

Surveyed Statement: Faculty Want More Flexibility in How They Deliver Their Courses

Are We Ready for this Shift?

Surveyed Statement: Faculty Have the Skills and Know-How to Effectively Deliver Courses in Multiple Modes

Why Aren’t We Talking About This Modality Shift More?

What is your experience?

Why This is Important

Short History of SARA Policy

SARA Policy Modification Process Steps

Summary of the 2023 Proposals

First SARA Policy Proposal Public Forum

The Next Steps in the Process and How to Participate

Conclusion

The Place

The Challenge

The Solution

The Team

How it Started

Our Design Process and Tools

Course Materials

Learning Through Art Itself

Student Reflection and Projects

Online Program Management Update

Synopsis of the Department’s Listening Sessions on OPM Incentive Compensation

WCET Members Respond to Our Survey on Their OPM Experiences

Advantages and Disadvantages of OPMs

What Should the Department Be Regulating (or Not)?

Other Issues We Will Highlight in Our Comment

Discussions With Others About Third-Party Servicers

Our Take on Third-Party Servicers Guidance

Please Participate in this Feedback Process

OPM Comments Need to Be Submitted This Week

Third-Party Servicers Official Comments are Due March 3o

If You Don’t Want to Formally Comment, Ask Questions. And You Should!

Conclusion

Key Observation #1:

What does this mean?

Key Observation #2:

What does this mean?

Key Observation #3:

What does this mean?

Conclusion

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