Author: Russ Poulin

New State Authorization ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter NOT Focused on Distance Ed

By Russ Poulin

January 25, 2013

13 Comments

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education released a new “Dear Colleague” letter regarding the upcoming deadlines regarding state authorization. The letter was sent to the attention of the “State Education Agency Administrators” and the governors of each state. Thank you to Al Lind of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education for alerting me to this letter.

Bottom line: I don’t think that the information in this letter will have any immediate impact on the distance learning community.

I wanted to alert you to the letter as I have heard that there has been confusion as to its meaning. State authorization is often mentioned only in the context of distance learning and there may be those who think this letter set new dates for federal enforcement of state authorization regulations. This is not the case.

I talked to Sophia McArdle of the Department of Education to gain assurance that this letter was not aimed at distance education. She declined to say if or when any further distance education guidance might be coming. I am hearing that the Department of Defense will soon require proof that an institution is authorized in a state in which it serves military personnel. More on that as we hear the details.

The confusion caused by this letter may have been fueled by a brief issued by the National Governors Association on January 17th, which urged the state’s top executives to: “…consider calling for a review of current state laws and regulations surrounding authorization of online programs.” I could see how both activities in the same week could lead people to think that there had been new action taken on distance education regulations.

A Reminder: § 600.9(c) on Distance Education
It was federal regulation § 600.9(c) that focused on distance education: “”If an institution is offering postsecondary education through distance or correspondence education to students in a State in which it is not physically located or in which it is otherwise subject to State jurisdiction as determined by the State, the institution must meet any State requirements for it to be legally offering distance or correspondence education in that State.”

This regulation was vacated by the federal courts and the Department has said that it is not enforcing this regulation. I still hear people cite the need to comply by July 1, 2014 that was an outgrowth of that regulation. Since that date was tied to the vacated regulation, that date is no longer in force. There is no federal July 1, 2014 deadline for distance education.

Since the federal regulation was vacated on technical grounds, it is my opinion that we will see this regulation (or some forms of it) return in the future.

Meanwhile, states still expect institutions to follow their laws…and expect you to be in compliance before serving students in their state.

§ 600.9(a) and § 600.9(b) — The Rest of the State Authorization Regulation
These two sections of the federal regulations are not focused on distance education and are the subject of the recent “Dear Colleague” letter. It focuses on what the state must do to be able to authorize an institution, including having third-party complaint processes and identifying authorized institutions by name.

I talked to Greg Ferenbach of Dow Lohnes about this issue this week. He knew of some state that had few regulations to authorize institutions within their own borders. I know of some states in which their regulations did not cover all institutions in the state and they had to make some adjustments to regulations and/or laws.

The states were supposed to address the new federal requirements and cover all institutions in their state by July 1, 2011. The states had two chances to request extensions. The new “Dear Colleague” letter reminded states that the end of a second extension will be June 30 of this year.

In Conclusion
These regulations are more focused on institutions within the state than on distance education. However, I would not be surprised to see the Department bring back some form or regulation for distance education. If you are asked about this “Dear Colleague” letter, tell them that the state needs to make sure that its authorization rules meet the federal requirements.

Thank you,
Russ

Russell Poulin
Deputy Director, Research and Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
wcet.wiche.edu
Twitter: wcet_info and RussPoulin

Legislation, Regulation, State Authorization, U.S. Department of Education

Uncategorized

Serious Thinking About Online Learning In Florida

By Russ Poulin

January 24, 2013

Last week, we heard Phil Hill’s take on a statewide meeting in California to address how technology-mediated learning could help the state meet its higher education goals. David Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) was a key presenter at a similar meeting recently held in Florida. Below is David’s take on that meeting. One thing is for sure, we are increasingly seeing this discussion about how question of how e-learning can be part of a strategy for the state or province to better serve its students.

At the behest of the Florida Legislature, the State University System of Florida Board of Governors engaged the Parthenon Group to conduct a study of what options might be available to the State with regard to future development and expansion of high quality online learning and to ascertain what current leaders and stakeholders in the State felt about these various options. The Parthenon report was presented to the Board of Governors Strategic Planning Committee at a meeting on December 17, 2012.

Photo of David Longanecker — David Longanecker

Accompanying the report were presentations by Bruce Chaloux, Director of the Sloan Consortium, who shared with the Committee how the various options presented in the Parthenon report compare to other innovative approaches being pursued throughout the country and by me. I shared with the Committee the policy implications associated with the various options that had been presented.

The legislative request originated from increasing legislative interest in finding more cost effective ways of providing postsecondary education and clear fascination with some initiatives in other states, particularly with the efforts to create a $10,000 degree, the current hype about MOOCs, and the heightened visibility provided within Florida to for-profit online institutions in the Presidential campaign of last year. This despite the fact that Florida is already a national leader in the provision of online education, in both its private and public sectors of higher education. Parthenon reported that 40 percent of the students in Florida colleges and state universities, excluding the research university sector, already take at least one course online, compared to 31 percent nationally. And institutions like University of Central Florida are recognized as national leaders in the delivery of online and hybrid technology-mediated instruction.

The discussion at the steering committee focused on a 4 by 4 matrix of goals and strategies to achieve those goals. The goals included:

(1) expanding access,

(2) increasing efficiency so student costs could be restrained,

(3) strengthening the link between postsecondary education and the labor market, and

(4) enhancing the student experience.

The four strategies mapped out by the Parthenon Group were:

(1) allowing all institutions to follow market forces in developing online offerings, which would be for all practical purposes the strategy that Florida has pursued up to this point,

(2) fostering collaboration between institutions,

(3) establish one or more lead institutions to be responsible for the delivery of online programming throughout the state, or

(4) create a new online institution to be the best in the world at doing this new type of business.

Although press accounts indicate that the original sponsor of the legislation envisioned the state following the fourth option by creating “the ultimate” new public university for the delivery of online learning, there was very little support for this idea from either the Parthenon report, the consultants, or the leaders and stakeholders who were consulted. While the Parthenon report picked no favorites among the four strategies, its analysis demonstrated quite clearly that this option would not well serve the four goals that had been established.

While the committee did not settle on “a plan” at the meeting, the general tenor of the meeting suggested that what may best serve Florida would be an amalgam of strategies 2 and 4 — fostering collaboration, but with some institutions as recognized leaders. This approach was perceived as finding a balance between allowing institutions with an inclination to be more aggressive in this domain to be so, while allowing late adopters not to be entirely shut out of what is likely to be a ubiquitous element in the future of American higher education.

As readers may or may not be aware, Florida is what might be called frugal in its level of support for higher education, ranking 32nd in support per FTE student. It is also recognized, however, as perhaps the most cost effective state, ranking first in the cost per degree granted. Thus, any strategy for providing greater availability of online learning has to keep in mind that dollars are tight in Florida and that the State’s current investment in online learning is working quite well, at least as compared to most other states.

David Longanecker
President
WICHE

Access, Collaboration/Community, Cost of Instruction, Legislation

Practice

Universities Rebranding with Competencies in Mind: Top Prediction for 2012

By Russ Poulin

January 10, 2013

3 Comments

Early in 2012 we asked WCET members and other notable thinkers to provide predictions for postsecondary e-learning for the year. From a OMG-it’s-all-over-the-media point-of-view, it’s quite clear that MOOCs were the big story this past year. None of our prognosticators nailed that prediction, but some got close to catching variations of what MOOCs were trying to accomplish.

Starting a new tradition, we asked last year’s winner of the “Seeing the Future” award for top prediction of 2011 to review the 2012 predictions and to pick his successor. Last year’s winner, Myk Garn, did not predict that he would be moving from the Southern Regional Education Board to StraighterLine in 2012, but he made sure to take his crystal ball with him.

Here is our countdown of honorees and an invitation for you to make your prediction for 2013:

#5 The Year of Hype

My favorite submission of last year came from Catherine Kelley of Fairleigh Dickinson University:

“There will be a new gadget released that will take the consumer market by storm. People will line up for hours in order to get one. A small university that nobody ever heard of will provide the device to its entire freshman class and thus gain national publicity. Higher education analysts will herald this new device as the thing we have all been waiting for, that will serve to engage students, deepen learning, improve enrollment, and reduce cost. Important thinkers will argue that we need to use this device in our teaching in order to reach the younger generation, who now expect it. Technology companies will figure out clever ways to integrate their product with the new device. The device will be the hot raffle item at Educause. (ref The Onion – sorry, I couldn’t help myself.)”

While it seemed humorous at the time, the press and many academic leaders simply fell in love with the notion that MOOCs will soon be a revolutionary, game-changing, silver bullet that will solve higher education’s concerns about access, quality, and affordability. The attention really has put technology-mediated education into the spotlight. We better be ready for that in the coming year.

Photo of Marie Cini with "Seeing the Future Certificate — Marie Cini, UMUC, proudly displays her WCET “Seeing the Future” award.

#4 Analytics…Not Here Yet, but Still Generating Interest

Pat Fenn of New Jersey’s Ocean County College had high hopes for “learner analytics” in 2012:

“Learner Analytics will become increasingly important in E-learning to measure student success, Faculty participation and to develop new methods of teaching at a distance.”

It continued to get buzz, media interest, and continued research…including WCET’s Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework. The initial work is promising. However, there is still more work needed on wider acceptance.

#3 Higher Education Landscape Relatively Quiet

We don’t usually get people predicting what won’t happen, but Fran Kelly (retired, yet active sage) gave us this insight:

“Because it is an election year, I think the general higher education landscape will be relatively quiet in 2012. But in 2013, I predict some long standing issues will begin to be addressed…I realize you are asking about 2012…but please share my comments…cause I think we are in a ‘talk but hold’ situation over the coming months.”

While there were some ripples in particular states, the federal and state landscape was relatively quiet. Federally, both a financial aid fraud rulemaking process and the future of a federal state authorization rule were put on hold. Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is due to be considered in 2013, so talk may turn to action. At the end of 2012 and beginning of 2013, there were statewide meetings in Florida and California regarding to role of e-learning in the higher education quality, cost, and quality equation. Fran was prescient in that 2013 may see more state-level action on these issues.

#2 Three or More New Entrants into the Low-cost Degree Segment

After years of seeing mostly a reshuffling of the same old higher education players, Richard Hezel of Hezel Associates foresaw that completely new entities would be founded:

“In 2012 there will be three or more new entrants into the low-cost degree segment (sim. WGU), with either competency based degrees or other efficiency-oriented methods of development and delivery.”

What seemed like a bold prediction actually may have been a bit conservative. Following on Governor Perry’s call for a $10,000 degree, Texas is figuring out how to meet that goal. Similar calls came from the governors of Florida and Wisconsin. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded the MyCollege Foundation, which partnered with a Catholic college to provide online associate’s degrees to disadvantaged youth. Going the opposite way and targeting the elite (who needed more help in pursuing higher education) is the Minerva Project. If we’re looking at MOOCs, this was the year of EdX, Udacity, Coursera, and others burst onto the scene. I know that we’re missing some, but it was a big year for grant and investment funds underwriting start-up activities.

#1 Universities Will Develop Their Own Versions and Brands of “Competency-based Education”

Congratulations to Marie Cini , acting provost and chief academic officer at the University of Maryland University College, for this year’s top prediction:

“I foresee many universities developing their own versions and brands of “competency-based education” as a response to the growth of WGU to additional states. This will be healthy for higher education as the nature of what constitutes ‘learning’ will be re-examined and re-assessed.”

Myk’s reasoning for making this pick: “Marie got my attention with ‘universities developing their own versions and brands…’ When I think about the discussions we have had over the past few months about MOOCs – they have been about the level of universities e.g. Harvard, Stanford and the A-List of ‘me-too’ joiners they have attracted – and the drive to create a ‘brand.’ True – we have talked much about the non-existent business models – but the bigger kvetch was that now, because of the university brands being associated with the new companies and collaboration somehow online had ‘arrived’ and was now ‘legitimized.'”

Certainly the much publicized work of the University of Wisconsin System, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Southern New Hampshire in creating competency-based alternatives caught our attention. Also, WGU Washington, joined its counterparts in Indiana and Texas as a competency-based alternative.

Make Your Prediction for 2013

You are invited to join in the fun for 2013. Predict something that will happen this year regarding teaching, learning, technology, business of e-learning, policy, regulations, student behavior, or other related items. You can submit your entry as a comment to this blog post or by sending an email to me at rpoulin@wiche.edu with the subject “2013 Prediction” by Thursday January 24.

Polish your crystal ball and join the fun.

Happy New Year from all of us at WCET.

Russ Poulin
Deputy Director, Research & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu

Support our work. Join WCET.

Competency-based Education, Cost of Instruction, Data and Analytics, Financial Aid, MOOC, State Authorization, Student Success

Practice

What Are You Reading?

By Russ Poulin

December 20, 2012

2 Comments

Need some advice for reading for the holiday break or as a resolution for the new year? I was thinking about books about elearning or higher education that I have read or have had recommended to me in the past year. I’m also interested in having you share the titles of books that you have read that have had an impact on your thinking about our business. Below are a few that come to mind.

The Seven Futures of American Education: Improving Learning and Teaching in a Screen-Captured World by John Sener
I like his take on the “cyberization” of education and how that is more of a current reality than a future destination. He also gives views of different scenarios of cyberized education in the future. It helps my thinking to compartmentalize as he has, but some mix of these futures is what will even eventually emerge.

Courageous Learning: Finding a New Path through Higher Education
by John Ebersole and William Patrick
Cali Morrison on our staff recommends this one and I’ve been meaning to read it too. Cali says that: “Courageous Learning tells the stories of students who found personal and professional fulfillment through higher education on unconventional paths and contains helpful profiles of several schools focused on adult learners. While primarily geared at the adult learner themselves, understanding the experiences contained within is important for faculty and administrators who wish to improve higher education for adult learners.” The book uses a combination of interviews, contributed pieces, and observations from the authors.

Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies
Edited by Diana G. Oblinger
I’ve heard good things about Educause’s book, but have not read it. Their description describes it as: “a collection of chapters and case studies contributed by college and university presidents, provosts, faculty, and other stakeholders. Institutions are finding new ways of achieving higher education’s mission without being crippled by constraints or overpowered by greater expectations.”

Abelard to Apple: The Fate of American Colleges and Universities
by Richard A. DeMilo
Al Lind from the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education said that they were using this book with their institutions to help them think about the future. MIT Press describes it as: “The vast majority of American college students attend two thousand or so private and public institutions that might be described as the Middle–reputable educational institutions, but not considered equal to the elite and entrenched upper echelon of the Ivy League and other prestigious schools. Richard DeMillo has a warning for these colleges and universities in the Middle: If you do not change, you are heading for irrelevance and marginalization.”

The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out
by Clayton Christensen and Henry Eyring
The Author of The Innovator’s Dilemma looks at his concept of “disruptive innovation” through the lens of change that has occurred in two universities: Harvard and BYU-Idaho.

What Are You Reading?

Please recommend any books or papers that you think others will find useful in their work. What has influenced your thinking?? We’d love for you to share.

As for me, I need to catch up on some of these books. Over the holidays, I’ll finish Gracie: A Love Story. This is George Burns’ loving tale of his wife and comic partner, Gracie Allen. Not really worked related, but it is a fun read so far.

Happy Holidays!!!
Russ

Russell Poulin
Deputy Director, Research & Analysis
rpoulin@wiche.edu

Innovation

Practice

The Chaotic MBA Experience: Online Learning in a Time-starved World

By Russ Poulin

December 12, 2012

1 Comment

Earlier this year, I was on a plane that was delayed for unknown reasons. During the several hour delay I had the pleasure of meeting Sean Baxter, an up-and-coming executive with ITriage. In our discussion we solved many world problems and I learned that Sean was a recent online MBA graduate. I invited Sean to give us the perspective of an adult learner trying to balance family, work, and education. He also has some advice for us in what worked and did not work in his personal online learning journey. Thank you Sean for sharing your story.
Russ Poulin

Early in 2009 I found myself without a job, unsure of my professional future, and facing the worst financial downturn many of us will ever experience. I did not know at that time that enrolling in an online MBA program would be the road, if sometimes bumpy, to a brighter future.

I had been working for a professional staffing firm for a few years and became disillusioned. Maybe it was the imminent layoff or wishing to escape an industry geared toward monetary gain rather than helping people, but I decided that I needed to find something more fulfilling and left my position.

Photo of guest blogger Sean Baxter at his wedding with his bride and her mother. — Online students balance work, life, and education. Sean also navigated a wedding and family health problems.

Even though I was pushing 30, I realized that I did not have a complete grasp on what I wanted to be when I grew up. Understandably, a slight feeling of panic set in.

Deciding on an MBA Program

I knew that I wanted to expand my knowledge and capabilities, but was conflicted on which direction to take and what type of career to pursue. I decided that entering an MBA program would prove valuable, regardless of what specific path I followed.

That same year I entered the program at Regis University in Denver, Colorado. I chose a focus in Operations Management, which seemed to leave a variety of options available.

There are two choices for most of the curriculum in this program, courses on-campus at several Denver area locations, or an online option that was about 25% more expensive. Given the cost difference and my wide-open availability when I started the program, I chose to take some of the core MBA courses on-campus. This was a nice re-introduction to education after six or seven years, and to this day I feel fortunate to have had the time and flexibility for a few courses with live interaction and feedback.

Shortly after starting my MBA I had an opportunity to take a two-week temp position at a local healthcare company. I almost decided not to go after it due to the lack of stability and chance of it affecting my studies. Thankfully I chose to take it. The position was incredible and I immediately became passionate about the dynamics and sheer complexity of the health care system in our country. Although I was told upfront that this role had no possibility of going longer than specified, my passion must have shown. They were able to create a full-time position for me, which, at the time, was the best job I ever held.

Making the Move to Online

I faced some important decisions. Could I juggle a new job that demanded a sharp learning curve while also attending class? Was my focus on Operations still the right path? I was midway through an on-campus course when my full-time job started. I learned quickly that although the MBA program was skewed toward working professionals, attending class at night while working was not for me. Given my new passion, I also realized that I had a clear focus on what my specialization should be: Healthcare Management. Luckily it was one of the few areas that were offered exclusively online and I was able to change my focus without losing any steam.

It was a good thing that this decision was made for me, because my world began getting infinitely more complex and time consuming between home and work. My job took off, which meant a rapid promotion and increased responsibilities, but also meant that I started travelling two to three weeks of each month. This would have made an on-campus class impossible. Around this same time, I became engaged and started planning a wedding. Unfortunately my now mother-in-law was diagnosed with a serious form of cancer and moved in with us. Could I find the time to juggle these commitments?

Sean’s work and travel schedule for iTriage made online learning ideal in meeting his time constraints.

My Online Learning Experience

The online program brought several distinctions from the campus courses. As I mentioned earlier, I enjoyed the live classroom interaction, so that was the first thing that I identified as lacking. The web-based program brought many benefits however. Here are some of the highlights:

Flexibility – this is, quite simply, the reason that online learning exists. While there were weekly responsibilities and deadlines, it was relatively easy to keep up with them.
Exposure – This was particularly beneficial in a healthcare program, where I had coursemates that ranged from physicians at the Mayo Clinic to flight surgeons stationed in Iraq.
Access – Our access to an online library was extensive, including databases like Lexus Nexus and premier search capabilities for journals and periodicals.
Alternate learning tools – Being online, courses would frequently point to up-to-date resources that shed light on how the skills we were learning were applicable in real time.

Other areas that I did not always care for were:

Group work – This is a part of many graduate programs, online or not. The online component made it more difficult in some circumstances where group members spanned four time zones.
Teacher involvement – While some courses had extensive instructor support, I found that, as a whole, the online courses seemed to have less teacher input than live courses. This became frustrating in some cases due to the higher cost of the online option.

Overall, I am thrilled with the online learning experience I encountered in my MBA program. I would highly recommend it to anyone that thinks they do not have time in their lives to fit in education. The program has catapulted my career in a short time, and now that I am done, I am wondering what lies next for me in education.

Sean Baxter
Regis University, Online MBA Class of 2012
Regional Vice President, iTriage, LLC

Download iTriage on your iPhone or Android smartphone.
Visit the www.iTriageHealth.com website on your desktop or any mobile phone browser.

Access, Online Learning, Student Success, Workforce/Employment

Uncategorized

Distance Education in IPEDS

By Russ Poulin

November 28, 2012

There are some exciting changes in the Integrated Postsecondary Data Education System (IPEDS) data collection. Most notably, IPEDS has started to collect more information on postsecondary distance education. In the 2011-12 data collection year, IPEDS began asking institutions if they were exclusively a distance education institution (i.e. all of their programs are offered via distance education), so we now know that in Fall 2011 there were 30 Title IV institutions (i.e. institutions that participate in the federal financial aid programs) in the U.S. that were exclusively distance education institutions. In the current data collection year (2012-13), we are collecting information on the number of students enrolled in distance education and which programs are offered as completely distance education programs.

What is Distance Education?

Distance education, for the purposes of IPEDS, is “Education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously.” A distance education course is a course in which all the instructional content is delivered via distance education. A distance education program is a program in which all the courses, or instructional content, are distance education courses. Courses that have some of the instructional content delivered while the students and instructors are in the same room are not distance education courses and programs in which even one course is not a distance education course are not distance education programs. For this purpose, examinations, orientation, and practical experience components of courses or programs are not considered instructional content.

How Did NCES Decide to Add Distance Education Items to IPEDS?

As distance education has become more prevalent in U.S. higher education, we at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) receive many requests for data on this topic. To respond both to the changing nature of higher education and to the interests of our data providers and users, a meeting of the IPEDS Technical Review Panel (TRP) was held to discuss possible changes to IPEDS to include items on distance education. Panelists include data providers from all sectors, state and system offices, national associations, data users, and policy experts. The distance education additions to IPEDS are the result of recommendations based on the 23rd IPEDS TRP. All TRP recommendations can be accessed at the TRP website.

What Will We Know About Distance Education?

Once all the new distance education data has been reported, there will be three general types of information available:

We will know which institutions offer distance education and to what extent.

Which institutions are exclusively distance education (this already available in the IPEDS Data Center and as a search criteria on College Navigator).
For those institutions that are not exclusively distance education, we will have information on whether or not those institutions offer any distance education opportunity and for what student level (undergraduate and/or graduate).

We will have information about the number of undergraduate and graduate students who are enrolled in distance education courses in the fall. The data will include the number of students enrolled exclusively in distance education courses, in some distance education courses, and in no distance education courses. For those students enrolled exclusively in distance education courses, institutions will be asked to report where the student is located while enrolled.

We will have information about which programs are able to be completed through exclusively distance education courses. This information will be available by field of study (Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code) and award level. These data will appear on College Navigator and will be especially helpful for prospective students interested in distance education opportunities.

When Will This New Distance Education Data Be Available?

Some of these new data, namely whether institutions are exclusively distance education institutions, are already available through the IPEDS Data Center.

Data on which programs at an institution are available to be completed entirely through distance education courses were collected in the Fall 2012 data collection and preliminary data will be available Spring 2013.

The data on enrollment in distance education courses are part of the upcoming Spring 2013 data collection. We expect the preliminary data to be available in Fall 2013.

We invite you to visit the IPEDS website for more information about the IPEDS program. To view the survey materials for the 2012-13 data collection (blank forms, instructions, faqs and other resources), visit the IPEDS data provider center.

Jessica Shedd
National Center for Education Statistics
U.S Department of Education

Allison Bell
National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Data and Analytics, IPEDS, Research

Uncategorized

State Authorization: Reciprocity Update, New Military Rules, and New Survey

By Russ Poulin

November 20, 2012

1 Comment

The work on the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement is moving forward and I’m inviting you to give some feedback. Additionally, significant new rules regarding state authorization for military personnel are on the near horizon. For those waiting for state authorization to “go away,” they may not be too happy. Finally, we’re updating our survey on what colleges are doing regarding compliance and we need your help.

Reciprocity Update

For people asking “ain’t this done yet,” I need to assure you that the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) is one of the most difficult and most political tasks that I have ever seen. Here’s a brief status on what the different players are doing:

The Presidents’ Forum

The Presidents’ Forum of Excelsior College received a grant from Lumina Foundation to create a model agreement for interstate reciprocity regarding state authorization. They have been working on this issue prior to the release of the federal regulation in October 2010. Their most recent draft of this model agreement is available online. They will complete it soon after some discussions with the regional higher education compacts to work on some details.

A picture of a man's hand and woman's hand involved in a handshake. — The State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement is moving forward, but it is more than a handshake agreement.

The Regional Higher Education Compacts

These organizations (MHEC, NEBHE, SREB, WICHE) have been around for decades forging higher education agreements among states within their regions. Since the Presidents’ Forum is creating a model and is not implementing their draft, the four regions are working on an implementation version of SARA that will cover all states and territories. Like the Presidents’ Forum model, states will individually have to choose to join the agreement. Beginning early in 2012 and based on the Presidents’ Forum model, WICHE took the lead and created an implementation draft that is now being reviewed by the other regions. MHEC and NEBHE have held meetings giving positive and constructive feedback. SREB’s meeting is upcoming.

The Commission on Regulation of Postsecondary Distance Education

Created by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) and the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), the Commission had an organizational meeting in May and discussed reciprocity at a September meeting. Their current draft of recommendations leans heavily on reciprocity work that preceded it, but suggests some changes.

REQUEST OF YOU: We’d love your comments, but the time is short. I’m going to try to get a link to their recommendations posted to this blog soon. Meanwhile, you can email me if you want a copy of the Commission’s recommendations. Get your comments to me by the end of the day on Tuesday, November 27. I know this is short, but the Commission is trying to meet a short timeline.

New Military Rules

Thank you to our friends at the Dow Lohnes law firm, I’m hearing that the Department of Defense will be issuing a new Memorandum of Understanding for institutions that serve those in the military. One provision of this new agreement will be that institutions will need to demonstrate that they have authorization, if needed, to serve military personnel in the state in which she is receiving the instruction. The regulation appears to be based on the vacated 600.9(c) regulation.

Even institutions that are not part of the Servicemembers’ Opportunity College (SOC) program will need to sign the agreement if they are serving military personnel. There will be a comment period once the proposed MOU is released. We will let you know when the Memorandum of Understanding is released.

State Authorization “What are Colleges Doing (or Not Doing)” Survey

We are constantly asked “what are other institutions doing about state authorization?” Are they waiting? Are they moving forward? We need data and we need your help.

WCET has again partnered with UPCEA to update last year’s survey on the state of institutional compliance with state authorization regulations. Joining us as a partner this year is the Sloan-Consortium. The survey is now out and went to only one person at each institution. Where we had multiple contacts across the membership lists of the three organizations, we had a formula for deciding on which name to use. However, the formula was not perfect in identifying the right person in each case. The survey was sent out by Jim Fong of UPCEA. If you did not receive it, check with others at your institution and check your spam filter, as someone has already found one there.

If no one at your institution received it and you would like to participate, email me with your name, institution, and email address and we will get you a survey invite.

Thank you for your help.

Russ

Russell Poulin
Deputy Director, Research & Analysis (& Turkey)
WCET
rpoulin@wiche.edu

Military and Veterans, SARA, State Authorization, Survey, U.S. Department of Education

Practice

Transforming the Developmental Math Experience

By Russ Poulin

November 8, 2012

1 Comment

The WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award recognizes exceptional efforts by WCET members in implementing technology in higher education, especially in outstanding innovation, quality improvement, or achievements in using educational technology tools, techniques, or services. Guest Blogger Claudia L’Amoreaux describes the award-winning work of the Monterey Institute for Technology and Education and its National Repository of Online Courses for its program to help financially disadvantaged students pass developmental math courses.

The NROC team is honored to receive the WOW award. We appreciate the opportunity to share with Frontiers readers some background about “Developmental Math—An Open Program,” the team behind it, and the students and educators piloting it in classrooms around the country.

Unique Solutions to a Critical Problem

If you have any involvement with high schools, community colleges, and universities today, you’re probably aware that math is the primary reason students don’t make it into or through college. Half of all freshmen entering community colleges are required to take up to two years of developmental math before they can take credit-bearing classes. That’s a staggering statistic with serious, wide-reaching consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the students referred to developmental math courses in community college do not complete the required series.

With grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the NROC project set out to create “Developmental Math—An Open Program” as a solution to this escalating crisis. From the start, the NROC team went directly to students and instructors for input and feedback on what they need to be successful, running a series of focus groups at schools throughout the United States. Based on the student, instructor, and administrator feedback, the NROC team tailored “Developmental Math—An Open Program” to meet their expressed needs. The first pilots started in Fall, 2011. To date, fifty schools and seventy instructors have piloted the course in a wide range of settings that include community colleges, high schools, and middle schools.

Innovative Pilot Programs

Photo of students at Renton Technical College in a welding class — Renton Technical College students in a welding class

Renton Technical College in Renton,Washington was one of the first schools to pilot the program. RTC Math Coordinator Marty Cooksey initially tested the course with two part-time instructors in three Fundamentals of Mathematics courses. They used an “emporium model” where students worked independently in a computer lab with individualized instructor assistance as needed. Based on their success in the initial pilot, Marty’s goal today is to customize and integrate the program across the entire college curriculum—tailoring the course for welding, engineering, nursing, legal assistance, culinary, and adult basic education students.

On a recent trip to RTC, NROC Pilot Coordinator Eileen Akin had an opportunity to talk with students in the pilot and hear firsthand their experiences with the program.

“Talking with RTC students inspired me. The students I was speaking with were mostly returning students, in their 30s and older. They were really honest about how hard it was to be back in school. One of the oldest students volunteered that he had struggled in school. He shared that using the NROC course helped him feel better about school. He realized he could get math. He’s now getting As. I could see the difference these materials were making in people’s lives.”

At Chattanooga State Community College, pilot lead Judy Lowe and her faculty colleagues are concerned about the additional financial burden developmental courses place on students: “Our current system delays their course of study so we’re looking for an alternative. We don’t want students to have to pay for a developmental course.” Chattanooga State Community College serves six counties in Southeast Tennessee and bordering counties of North Georgia and Alabama. The school is participating in the NROC Developmental Math pilot to provide support for students preparing for the COMPASS placement exam. They started piloting informally in August, 2012 with ten students. The students used the resources independently at home or in the computer lab with assistance as needed for one to three weeks before re-taking the COMPASS test. Seven students completed and six have achieved their goal of increasing their COMPASS scores

For the Fall 2012 pilot, Chattanooga started offering the course in their Academic Learning Center. Facilitators are counseling students who score less than a 17 on the COMPASS to use the NROC resources. Students must achieve a score of 38 or higher to enroll in a college-level math course. Facilitators will request student permission to track their use and to collect further data. In exchange, the college will offer to pay for the student to take the placement exam a second time.

Ruth Rominger, the NROC project’s Director of Research, is excited about seeing the positive reception from students and instructors in so many different scenarios.

“The stories we get to hear are so rewarding. Like from Chattanooga… a returning veteran who was discouraged about not finding work and placing into a developmental math course when she attempted to return to school was given access to the NROC materials to prepare for retaking the test. She studied with the NROC program for two weeks, retested, and scored so much better that she got to go straight into her college courses, saving her a year of remediation time and expense.”

Claudia L'Amoreaux of NROC — Claudia L’Amoreaux

To read more stories about “Developmental Math—An Open Course,” please visit the NROC Math website.

Claudia L’Amoreaux
Curator, NROC Project’s Connected PD
http://connectedpd.posterous.com
clamoreaux@gmail.com

Collaboration/Community, Cost of Instruction, Innovation, K-12, Readiness and Developmental Courses, Technology

Uncategorized

Are Your Arms Too Short to Teach a MOOC?

By Russ Poulin

September 26, 2012

6 Comments

Thank you to guest blogger, Chuck Wight of the University of Utah. In this post, he describes some of his experiences in taking a MOOC offered by Coursera.

Last fall, Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig offered their Artificial Intelligence course to 160,000 students as a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). That’s very impressive. Thrun likens this sort of project to jumping off an ocean liner and then learning how to swim. I have to admit that this intrigues me, but I’m more inclined than Thrun to think before jumping. Am I good enough to teach a MOOC? Why would I be interested in trying? What’s in it for me?

The answer to these questions quickly distilled itself to a single word: impact.

As a researcher, the academic rewards of my work are closely associated with impact. My productivity as a scholar is measured by numbers of published articles, books, citations, awards, and grants. These metrics are not tied directly to my chosen field or to the breadth or depth of my work. Instead, they are reflections of the impact of my research on others in my field.

We don’t use analogous metrics of impact for teaching, and that disparity goes a long way toward explaining why teaching frequently takes a back seat to research in faculty promotion and tenure decisions.

Photo of part of the "Statement of Accomplishment" for Chuck Wight's completion of the Cryptography course. — An image of the “Statement of Accomplishment” that Chuck Wight earned for excelling in the Coursera Cryptography course. Note his exemplary total score!!

The impact of traditional teaching is limited in breadth by the number of students that can occupy a classroom, and in depth by the time and commitment required by both teacher and students to achieve the desired outcomes. A MOOC can remove the restriction on class size, and therefore has the potential to increase the impact of teaching, almost without limit.

The questions that remain are:

How could I attract huge numbers of students to take my class?
How could I motivate students to learn and achieve the desired outcomes?
What special techniques of class management are required to teach a MOOC?

The starting point for this journey of discovery was to become a student in a MOOC. So, I pointed my web browser to Coursera.org and signed up to take a course in Cryptography offered by Professor Dan Boneh at Stanford University. It was easy. Coursera wanted to know my name and email address, and they asked me to establish a password. No particular qualifications or credentials were required. No transcripts, no standardized test scores, no essays, and no letters of recommendation. They didn’t ask for a credit card number; they only needed to know how to grant me access to the class and how to contact me for class announcements.

The class consisted mainly of three parts. The first is a series of video lectures, each about 10 minutes long. The information content is very dense, so I frequently used pause/rewind/replay to understand the lectures. Most videos are Powerpoint presentations with audio voiceovers. Each one started with a few seconds of Professor Boneh’s image explaining what we were about to do, and he marked up the slides with a stylus on a tablet computer as he was talking. Each video was punctuated with 2-3 short-answer quiz questions designed to keep the viewer engaged in learning instead of just watching. This takes way more effort than watching TV.

The second component is the problem sets. In this Cryptography class, half of the problem sets are structured as quizzes, which featured multiple rotating and randomized answers to make the questions more challenging. The other half were programming assignments where students were required to write a small program to break a cipher or, in one case, to execute an oracle attack on a class server to decipher a coded message.

The third component is the discussion forums. The instructor created some designated areas (General Discussion, Video Lectures, Problem Sets, Errata, and Study Groups) to provide a general framework for this, but students could add threads inside of any of the areas. It was interesting to see how students self-organized the study groups around around country (Croatia, Brazil, Russia, India, Poland, Pakistan, Nepal, Sweden), language (Spanish, Greek, Vietnamese, French, English, Arabic), and culture (Chicano). It was clear to everyone that most students in this MOOC reside outside the U.S.

During the class I contacted Professor Boneh directly to ask him a few questions about how the course operates. He indicated that he has support from 3 teaching assistants to monitor the discussion groups and respond to many questions. About 50% of students complete the course. He also said that offering the MOOC is “a lot of work (but is fun).”

At the end of the class, I completed a final exam and received a certificate of completion from Coursera. I learned a huge amount about secure message encryption and public key exchange. I found the whole process to be a lot of work on the student side as well, but also a very rewarding 6 weeks of learning.

Chuck Wight
Dean of the Graduate School
University of Utah

MOOC, Outcomes, Teaching

Practice

Morphing Virtual into Reality – Building the “Virtual College”

By Russ Poulin

August 23, 2012

Last fall, I had the pleasure of meeting President Lee Lambert and Ann Garnsey-Harner of Shoreline Community College after they presented on their ambitious plans to create a virtual college. I was taken by the visionary leadership of President Lambert and the yeoman’s (yeoperson’s?) work of Ann Garnsey-Harter in using an open, inclusive planning process to create their new ‘virtual college.’ Here’s their story…
Russ Poulin

This July, the Shoreline Virtual College, a comprehensive community college just north of Seattle, went from project to product, from ethereal to earthly, from dream to … well, you get the idea.

It is absolutely a work in progress, but it also has progressed to absolutely working.

The Vision
Our effort had an inauspicious beginning. At a brown-bag, all-comers campus lunch on Aug. 26, 2010, our president, Lee Lambert, said, ““Technology can provide the platform to build a college within a college.” Then, using the analogy of a store that has a physical location to serve some customers, but can serve many more with an online store, he added: “What if we had a virtual store?”

Photo of students outside at Shoreline Community College — Moving Shoreline Community College’s students into the ‘Virtual College’

And so it began.

Creating a ‘Blueprint’
By December, I was drafted to co-chair a new “Virtual College Leadership Team,” and given the fast-track goal of producing a recommendation to the president 90 days later. The team was hand-picked from across the campus for their specific skills and perspectives. After a few initial full-group meetings, we decided that a divide-and-conquer approach was our only hope of meeting the deadline. We used a project wiki to organize ourselves, collaborate, and to share what was going on with our campus. The word “brutal” comes to mind when thinking back to the resultant schedule of meetings and work, but the word “rewarding” pops up when I think of what was accomplished.

We persevered and on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, delivered a 92-page “Blueprint for a Virtual College: Report to the President’s Senior Executive Team” to President Lambert and his executive team.

The Blueprint’s conclusions aren’t radical, but because we looked into every nook and cranny of the online educational experience, we’re confident they provide a thoughtfully solid foundation for this college at this time. We said the college should take an “approach that will build upon the College’s existing strengths: offering high quality online instruction at an affordable price. … Using this incremental approach, the immediate recommended goal is to improve existing online instructional offerings and to package them comprehensively, and – equally if not more importantly – to address internal process barriers in the area of student services.”

Shoreline was already a pretty big player in online education through our existing eLearning program. We saw opportunities to grow in numbers of students served and the quality of the educational experience. We also saw that our student services areas – particularly the enrollment-related areas – were built for the person who can physically come to our campus. We knew that to be successful, we’d have to meet more than students’ online educational expectations, we’d also have to meet their online consumer expectations.

We’re moving ahead in both areas.

Now, We’re Implementing
For the academic experience, we’re currently using the latest version of Blackboard and their mobile-device platform. In making that choice we were mindful of two things: 1) The Washington Community and Technical College state system was Angel-based and about to solicit bids for a new learning management system, and 2) President Lambert wanted this done yesterday. Blackboard has been a valuable partner in this effort and any future decisions will be based on the best learning experience we can provide for our students.

We’ve also been working hard to optimize and standardize the online environment that students experience. Across our physical campus, our classrooms pretty much look and operate the same way. The instructor changes, the course content changes, but the chairs, desks, paint, light switches are all familiar. By working closely with our faculty, we are using the Quality Matters program to bring that same level of familiarity to our virtual campus.

Addressing the student services areas, including the consumer interface, is an ongoing challenge. Obviously, we needed processes that would meet students’ needs without requiring them to come to the physical campus. In short order, we also realized that such processes would benefit all students, whether they could come to campus or not. In truth, we already had such processes, but they were clunky, definitely not the path of least resistance. So, we’re working with vendors and our on-campus constituencies to build something that works for all. Our goal is to remove the process of becoming a student as one of the barriers to the life-changing education we know we are providing.

So, www.shorelinevirtualcollege.org is on its way. Our Public Information Office has launched advertising campaigns focusing on five of our 20 online degrees and certificates. We’re monitoring the contacts we get from the marketing efforts, closely watching enrollment numbers and holding our collective breath maybe just a little. We know there is much to improve, but we also know that “perfect” is an elusive goal that can get in the way of progress. While the Shoreline Virtual College is the result of many hands, perhaps the most important ingredient was leadership that was more interested in a strategy of “launch and fix.” For all the behind-the-scene details, please read through our project wiki.

Ann Garnsey-Harter
Director of the Virtual College and eLearning Services
Shoreline Community College
agarnsey@shoreline.edu

Managing Digital Learning, Marketing, Online Learning, Student Success, Technology, Virtual/Augmented Reality