Categories
Practice

WCET Digital Learning Content Summit: Second Day & Free-range Learning

Yesterday we completed WCET’s Leadership Summit on New Directions for Digital Learning Content.  We had great conversations with academic leaders, elearning professionals, and corporate executives about educational digital resources of all kinds. 

Thank you to T.J. Bliss, doctoral candidate at BYU, for taking extensive notes.  Using Google docs, we’ll be adding more to those notes in the next few days.  Again, we’ve compiled some notable highlights of what we heard and of the differing points-of-view.  Be sure to catch

First, we’d like to give a shout-out to Glenda Morgan of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for providing the day’s lasting meme…free-range learning.  Accompanied by a great picture of chickens enjoying a grassy field, she said that free range chickens begin with a coop and some basic food.  Even so, they spend most of the day looking for other food on their own.  Likewise, free-range learning gives a basic structure, but students are allowed to discover on their own.

Kaye Howe from the National Science Digital Library had several gems:

  • We are now overwhelmed by content. Things like curation are enormously important. Organizing knowledge requires great skill.
  • Knowledge is a counsel against despair.  Knowledge breaks down the erroneous ideas we get of the “others.”
  • The digital world has created a complete inversion of authority.  I can’t be confident that I know more than my students do.  “This inversion of authority is one of the most important things that has happened on the planet since we staggered out of the Garden of Eden.”
  • “We’re learning something about how people learn and trying to share and pass that on to each other. We’re trying to break down the forces of the counter-reformation who are trying to find new ways to impose control.”

    Rooster out in the "free-range"
    Feeling the freedom of free-range learning

In one year, Western Governors University went from 103 required textbooks to only four.  98% of the ebook delivery is at no extra costs to WGU students.  They accomplished this through partnerships with CourseSmart, Flatworld Knowledge, VitalSource, Pearson, and Soomo.

Chris Manriquez talked about several initiatives of California State University, Fullerton:

  • Their “Mobile First” paradigm is supported by giving mobile devices (laptop, iPhone, and IPad) to every qualified faculty member.   He later revealed that the iPads were paid for by savings from not using paper for everything.
  • The California State University’s Affordable Learning Solutions Campaign enables faculty to choose quality educational content that is more affordable for their solutions.
  • The institution sponsored CourseSmart as an inCommon Partner.

Lessons from Chris Manriquez:

  • Adoption has been slow.  Transition to digital content is not an overnight event.
  • Present the device as an option, not a solution.
  • Show the value added.
  • Use multiple pilot groups.

Christina Royal from Cuyahoga Community College discussed their purchase of hundreds of licenses from Flatworld Knowldege.  The student reaction:

  • 91% thought that open textbooks were more cost effective.
  • 78% said that the open textbook was the same or more engaging than other textbooks that they used.
  • 73% believed that digital was of the same quality as print.
  • 49% said that they preferred digital to paper.

David Porter discussed BCcampus’s “collaborate to compete” initiatives to reduce costs and create efficiencies.  He encouraged building partnerships, such as the international OERu and the North American Network of Science Labs Online patnership with WICHE.  David challenged WCET to create a new initiative highlighting open practices.

David Wiley addressed ways that individual faculty could follow open practices on their own.  Where does the terrain lie to become free-range learners?

  • Put your course syllabus on a wiki and invite student to rearrange or change the course.  It took four years before the firs student took him up on this offer.
  • Only assign items that are openly available on the web.
  • Have each student create a blog about their learning and share the blog location on the wiki. Make learning part of the world conversation, not just an assignment that one faculty person will red.
  • Instead of a textbook, Wiley created a sitcom-like discussion among several people. Using an open format, students added to it.
  • Wiley invited anyone in the world to participate in his classes.  The participants weren’t enrolled, but he gave them a letter if they successfully completed the course requirements.
  • Wiley recommended the open badge infrastructure.  A student completes a certain set of badges for an A, a reduced set for a B, and so on.  Unlike transcripts (which are relatively worthless), skills are verified.
  • Attend the Open Ed Conference in Vancouver in October.

Richard Culatta from the U.S. Department of Education described five initiatives:

  • LEAD (Leading Educaiton by Advancing Digital) Commission, which will “develop a blueprint detailing the opportunity for using technology as a catalyst to transform and improve American education.”
  • MyDAta Button will allow students to download student data in a machine readable format. The Department is working on a “minimal open data format” for offering this service.
  • Digital Badges for Learning calls for an open infrastructure to show competencies.
  • Learning Registry will provide “educators, learners, innovators, and the general public with access to learning resources from a variety of platforms.”
  • EdEx – There’s a need for individualized student data and the Department is seeking a standard agreement to move data from business-to-business.  The template would alleviate the need to create a new agreement for each partnership.

Corporate Sponsor Partnership Opportunities Announced at the Summit

CourseSmart announces pilot project for WCET members.  Shannon Meadows invites 10 WCET members to provide digital course materials contextually placed within the LMS with the following goals:

  • Provide more affordable Course Materials based on the institutions business practices.
  • Measure the effectiveness of contextual provisioning of course materials within the LMS.
  • Measure the effectiveness of mobile access to digital course materials.
  • Assess institution, student, and faculty experiences with digital course materials relative to hard copy alternatives.

Contact Shannon Meadows, if you are interested.

Flatworld Knowledge announced a partnerships pilot program that will:

  • Provide you with a person dedicated to helping your faculty.
  • Provide access to a virtual bookshelf for a standard per student, per course price.
  • Offer flexible delivery options.

Contact David Littlehale if you are interested.

Blackboard announced their pilot project for this coming Fall with the goals of:

  • Introduce different ways to access and use digital content in Blackboard Learn and CourseSites.
  • Gather user feedback.
  • Facilitate the creation of courses in Blackboard using different types of digital learning content that can be easily shared with other users – both as Blackboard courses as well as OER courses.
  • Develop community advocates.

Contact Julie Kelleher if you are interested.

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Photo credit from Morgue File: http://morguefile.com/archive/display/100782

Categories
Practice

WCET Digital Learning Content Summit: First Day Highlights

Greetings from Salt Lake City where WCET is holding its Leadership Summit on New Directions for Digital Learning Content.  Academic leaders, elearning professionals, and corporate executives are sharing advances in both proprietary and open digital resources. 

Below is a taste of some of the notable comments heard at the meeting.  You’ll note that there are differing opinions, depending on the presenter.  With a few exceptions, I’ve masked the presenters to let the ideas stand on their own:

Ellen Wagner’s hope for the meeting:  That we’ll have conversations about digital content options so that we know what we need to do to provide value for our stakeholders.

One thing is certain…there is no reason that content should be handled asynchronously as it has in the past.  Why shouldn’t content be part of everyday lives?

We have moral obligation to get education to as many people around the world as we can.Graphic with the words "Digital Content"

OERs are not a panacea.  There are lots of questions around the OER quality.  OERs are a caveat emptor market, with the user having to judge quality in a highly variable market.

I’m excited about digital content, but I’m concerned about the destruction of the idea of personal property.  If I buy a book I own the book , but digital content tends to be a world of passwords and permissions that expire.  You really only have rented access.  The advantages of OERs are great in terms of long-term ownership of content.

Embed the cost of course materials into the cost structure of the course.

Institutions need to develop principles of what they want to see in digital content.  In selecting providers, privilege those that meet your principles.  Institutions need to create market pressure to get what they want.  Some sample principles:

  • Keep content clean throughout its lifecycle.
  • Content is openly accessible to everyone.
  • Content must be transportable both out of and into LMSs.
  • Content needs to reside in a place where analytics can be used.

Listen to your students.  They understand the technology a lot better than we do.  Following them is not a bad place for us to go.

The Washington Open Course Library found that developing courses within an LMS was not the best way to go.

In its first year, the Washington Open Course Library saved students more in textbook costs that was spent in development costs.  The returns should only improve in future years.

How does Open Course Library maintain the energy it takes to get that many people to develop digital content?  “I’ve got two words: Herding cats.”

EduKan’s Project Aristotle makes extensive use of analytics to measure student success.  The analytics results also help students in customize their learning by guiding them in choosing from among alternate content options.

Classes using publisher-generated materials appear to be higher quality. But we want to encourage faculty to start generating their own content, not necessarily textbooks.  Courses should be built around content, not a textbook

Intellectual property issues are a pain in the neck.  Faculty are terrified of the legal implications.

Faculty control over individual courses will be disappearing in a few years.

Many institutions still do not have the support resources (like instructional designers) to support faculty and content creation.

In working with faculty, the “better” quality argument does not always work, but the “cheaper for students” argument sometimes does.  They are more motivated to save students money.

If the etextbook price does not respect the popular opinion that digital is cheaper, then real questions will arise.

Follow the discussion on the second day of the Summit at Twitter hashtag:  #wcetdlc

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Graphic: Created by Meridith Atwater for opensource.com: http://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceway/5161093789/

Categories
Uncategorized

State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement Draft Released: Seeking Your Feedback

State regulators attending the annual NASASPS meeting earlier this week received a first draft of the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA).   With funding from Lumina Foundation, the Presidents’ Forum working with the Council of State Governments developed the document as a “’model state reciprocity agreement’ that states could adopt to acknowledge other states’ work and decisions in regard to institutional authorization.”

Ultimately, this effort is about improving quality assurance and consumer protection for students across the nation.  While acknowledging the federal and accrediting roles in these processes, the goal statement in the draft document states:

“SARA offers a process that could make state authorization more efficient, more uniform in regard to necessary and reasonable standards of practice that could span states, and more effective in dealing with quality and integrity issues that have arisen in some online/distance education offerings. It could also be less costly for states and institutions and, thereby, the students they serve.”

In brief, SARA seeks to accomplish this goal by:

  • Assuring that states in the agreement have authorization processes that meet minimal standards.
  • Shifting the responsibility for authorization to the “home state” of the institution.  Once an institution receives approval in its home state, it will not need to seek approval in the reciprocating states.

For those states outside that agreement, it will be business as usual.

Seeking Your Feedback

Photo of hands engaging in a handshake
The reciprocity agreement focuses on quality assurance and consumer protection. Participating states will meet minimum standards. Institutions need seek approval only in their “home state.”

I serve on the Drafting Team of this effort and am also serving on the Committee seeking to implement a reciprocity agreement among the WICHE states.  On behalf of the Drafting Team, it is hard to describe how difficult this task has been.  There are many competing goals and needs to be considered.

We are now at a point where we are seeking broad feedback.  Below are a few highlights of what is proposed, but you will need to read the agreement for details.  Please make notes and give us your feedback.

For State Regulations

“Proposes a uniform set of minimal standards for state and institutional participation.”  States seeking to join the reciprocity agreement will be expected to have institutional approval processes that meet minimal standards.  While these standards are roughly outlined in this document, the initial set of states seeking to join the agreement will finalize those standards.

“Shifts principal oversight responsibilities from the state in which the “distance learning” is being offered to the “home state” of the institution offering the instruction.”  Currently, states regulate institutions serving students in their state.  This would flip that model so that regulators would oversee institutions from their state, regardless of where it serves students.

“Preserves full state oversight of on-the-ground institutions and campuses.” States will still regulate institutions that establish a physical location in the state.

For Institutions

Institutions need to obtain only one approval. Assuming that an institution is in a state that is part of the agreement, it will only need to obtain approval in its “home state.” The institution then becomes eligible to serve students in any other state that participates in the agreement.  It will not need to seek approval in each state.  For an institution from a state participating in the agreement, it will still need to follow the regulations of states that chose not to join SARA.  If an institution’s state does not join SARA, that institution will continue to need to seek approval in every other state.

Many of the physical presence activities that “trigger” approval will be covered by the agreement.  An institution approved by its “home state” will be able to offer courses at a distance, advertise, offer clincals or practica in a state, offer course on military installations, and perform other activities (as listed in the agreement) that formerly required an institution to seek approval in that state.  Note that for clinicals and practica, this agreement will not cover any additional requirements of each state’s professional licensure organizations, such as nursing or education. Institutions will still need to meet those requirements individually.

Finances

Meets several financial goals at once.  The agreement seeks the financial goals of and sometime competing needs of:

  • The “host state” (where the student is being served) in covering the costs of assisting students who are being taught from other states.  Regulators were worried that they would lose funding generated by the current model.  A new revenue source is proposed.
  • The institutions in seeking a price that is much less than what it would pay if it sought authorization in each state under the current regulations, but low enough that institutions that are currently out-of-compliance will seek to do so.  Institutions are estimating that it will cost more than $100,000 (for some, much more) in fees to seek approval in all states.  This agreement could be supported at a fraction of the cost.
  • A central organization that would be needed to implement and manage the agreement.

Managing Organization

Management is still under development. “The drafting team has intentionally provided minimal details on the operation of the organization that will be required to support SARA. Those would be generated by the entity itself, and the organization could be constituted and managed in a variety of ways.”  The regional higher education compacts (WICHE, SREB, MHEC, NEBHE) are greatly interested in the implementation and management of SARA and are actively pursuing how they can do so.

We Need Your Input

“We look forward to engaging further the broad higher education community, including state regulators (NASASPS), institutional organizations, and other interested and affected parties.” Comments and suggestions are welcome.  Watch for an announcement of an open webcast in which we will discuss the agreement and respond to questions.

Send your feedback to:

R. Crady deGolian
Director, The National Center for Interstate Compacts
The Council of State Governments
(859) 244-8068
cdegolian@csg.org

You are also welcome to provide your comments below.

Thank you,

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Photo credit: Handshake:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/o5com/5220980008/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Categories
Policy

Is Your Distance Education Course Actually a Correspondence Course?

St. Mary-of-the-Woods College should refund $42 million in federal financial aid dollars that it disbursed to students over a five year period.  That is the finding of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General, which found that many “distance education” courses should have been classified as “correspondence” courses.

From the recently-released Final Audit Report: “According to Section 102(a)(3)(B) of the HEA, an institution is not eligible to participate in the Title IV programs if 50 percent or more of its students were enrolled in correspondence courses during its latest complete award year.”

What does that mean for the rest of us? I’ll get to that.

Have You Heard of St. Mary-of-the-Woods?

St. Mary-of-the-Woods is a small, Catholic college located very close to the Illinois state line in (where else?) St. Mary-of-the-Woods, Indiana.  Founded in 1840, it is the oldest Catholic liberal arts college in the U.S.  The college’s website includes “frequently asked questions” about the audit and a “business as usual” response from President Dottie King.

Photo of a row of postal boxes.
 Without the proper technologies used or appropriate interaction, courses could be declared as correspondence courses…with financial aid implications.

While it would be fun to write a blog piece about the nasty feds traipsing out to wilds of Indiana to beat up on a bunch of nuns who only want to teach innocent young women, I won’t do that.  While an interesting mental picture, that’s not how the Department works.

The Audit Report includes reasoning, citations, and evidence from both parties. I found problems with the arguments on both sides.  I think I need more information and expertise to make a final determination…and making a ruling is not my role.

An aside…In full disclosure, St. Mary-of-the-Woods College participates in WCET’s State Authorization Network.  We also work with their attorney, Michael Goldstein, and his firm, Dow Lohnes, recently became a supporting member of WCET.  The reason I wrote this blog is that I was asked by a representative of another small college to review the audit and wanted to share my thoughts broadly.  I have not talked to Mr. Goldstein or anyone from the College about this audit report.

Lessons, Observations, and Take Aways

Below, I have briefly extracted points that you, as a distance education professional, will need to watch.  Before reaching for the aspirin, remember that most of your courses probably clearly fit the “distance education” definition.  Also, more than 50% of your enrollments must be classified as correspondence for your institution to lose its Title IV funding.  But, it’s good to understand the difference and think about how the definitions apply to your classes.  WCET does not want others to be caught short.

Practical Considerations

The U.S. Department of Education is applying the definitions of a “correspondence” course when it performs audits.  WCET had received questions about whether these definitions were actually being used by the Department.  This is evidence they are.

The definitions changed in 2010 and it would be good to be informed on those definitions. The current definitions of “correspondence” and “distance education” can be found in section § 600.2 of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.  These current definitions are also copied at the end of this blog post.  These definitions came into effect on July 1, 2010.  Prior to that, courses were classified as either “correspondence” or “telecommunications.”  You can find those definitions in the Audit Report on page 6.  The Department is supposed to use the definition that was in place at the time the course was offered.  St. Mary’s questioned whether this was the case.  If you think your college might have problems with the current definition, you might also want to look at the older definition for course prior to July 1 of last year.

The Department seemed to focus primarily on two elements: the technologies used and faculty-student interaction. To NOT be a correspondence course, you have to use one of several technologies listed.  While St. Mary-of-the-Woods courses and faculty had access to a learning management system and online discussions, the Department said that these were rarely used in practice.  For distance education (or telecommunications) courses, they also expect “regular and substantive interaction between these students and the instructor.”  The Audit found that “instructors did not deliver lectures or initiate discussions with students. Tutoring and other instruction resources were provided at the student’s discretion.”  The College disputed these assertions.  How do your classes stack up?

We’re still left with the question of how much interaction is “regular and substantive.”  Part of the current correspondence definition is that interaction is primarily initiated by the student. I think that gives us a good guideline and it may be difficult to ever develop an absolute definition.  We were contacted earlier this year with a question from someone who was told that students had to participate in a discussion every 48 or 72 hours.  I asked them to point me to the regulation or interpretation and they could not.  Please don’t go overboard in forcing interaction.

Be careful in how you describe what you do.  On page 33 of the Audit is a chart that compares the wording used to describe the Woods External Degree (WED) Program and the Woods Online Program.  One of the pieces of evidence used to declare the WED Program to be comprised of correspondence courses was the wording used to describe it.

The U.S. Department of Education is applying the “last day of attendance” for reimbursing financial aid criteria.  For students who withdraw without notifying the institution, a financial aid refund date needs to be determined based upon the last academically-related activity.  WCET has been following this issue for some time.  A few years ago, the Department was applying stricter standards for distance education without openly defining those standards.  With Dow Lohnes and other organizations, we asked them to do so.  Those regulations were provided and were put into effect on July 1, 2010.  Not surprisingly, now that the regulation is public, they are applying it.

Philosophical Considerations

Do the correspondence definitions make sense anymore?  This is a rather confusing basket of criteria about how someone is taught, what technologies are used, and who interacts with whom.  The Audit says that the “50 percent rule” on correspondence courses was established by Congress in 1992 “to address numerous instances of abuse.”  Telecommunications courses were exempted from the 50 percent rule in 2005, but there has been some talk of bringing it back.  Does the 50 percent rule really curb abuse?  I’m all against misuse of funds, but is there a better way?

Does the part residential rule make sense?  The current correspondence definition states: “If a course is part correspondence and part residential training, the Secretary considers the course to be a correspondence course.” I can make a case where that would make sense in some courses where the face-to-face session is not meaningful.  Couldn’t a series of residential experiences provide the “substantive interaction” desired?

Does using a list of technologies in the definition make sense?  What happens if an unforeseen technology becomes popular?

Conclusion

My goal is to inform and not to unnecessarily alarm you.  Most courses will pass these definitions. However, I imagine there is some other college out there that needs to review its practices and is not interested in a $42 million penalty.

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Photo credit:  From Morgue File.

======

Current Correspondence and Distance Education Definitions

Correspondence course: (1) A course provided by an institution under which the institution provides instructional materials, by mail or electronic transmission, including examinations on the materials, to students who are separated from the instructor. Interaction between the instructor and student is limited, is not regular and substantive, and is primarily initiated by the student. Correspondence courses are typically self-paced.

(2) If a course is part correspondence and part residential training, the Secretary considers the course to be a correspondence course.

(3) A correspondence course is not distance education.

Distance education means education that uses one or more of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this definition 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) Audio conferencing; 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) of this definition.

Categories
Uncategorized

Should Online Courses Charge Less? It Doesn’t Just Happen

I was recently invited to address the Indiana Commission for Higher Education on this issue.  They had received several proposals for distance programs in recent months.  Each one was pricing its courses at a rate higher than its on-campus counterpart.   The Commissioners asked, “If technology is bringing down costs in other industries, why isn’t that true in online education?”

Not surprisingly, this issue has been raised in the past in both Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Just this week there was a CNBC guest blog and a Fox News Business article on related issues.  I’m sure that this discussion has been held on campuses everywhere.  I’ll tell you what I said.

Are Students Charged More?  Let’s Look at the Stats.

We will soon release the results of the Managing Online Education Survey that we recently conducted in partnership with the Campus Computing Project.  As background on current practice, here’s an advance look at the responses to a few questions related to this topic.  There were 199 respondents to the survey representing all types of institutions and from throughout the country.

Do students in your online program pay the same tuition for one term?

A graph with the response to a survey question as to whether students in your online programs pay the same total tuition. 63.5% responded yes. 36.5% responded no.
Figure 1. Same Tuition: Online v. On-Campus?

From the Managing Online Education national survey, slightly more than one-third of the respondents (see Figure 1) reported charging a tuition that differs from the amount charged to on-campus students.  For the 72 institutions that did not charge the same amount, about one-fifth (19.3%) charged an amount that was less than charged on campus.

We also asked how much more or less they charged:

  • Over $250 LESS: 9.6%
  • $101-$250 LESS:  4.8%
  • $0 – $100 LESS:  4.8%
  • $0 – $100 MORE:  33.7%
  • $101-$250 MORE:  25.3%
  • Over $250 MORE:  21.7%

I found the outliers particularly interesting.  Charging $250 in additional tuition fits into stories that I’ve heard about select programs being able to charge premium pricing.  Sometimes higher cost is equated with higher quality. One of the Indiana Master’s programs in question was charging a much higher fee because they were able to get the student’s employers to foot the bill.   Charging $250 less in tuition surprised me and I’d like to learn more about how those institutions could do so.

Do students in your online program incur special fees not charged to on-campus programs?

Responses to a questin about whether students in an online program incur special fees, broken down by fee type. The responses were: Special fee for online course: No 63.5%, Some 8.6%, Yes, 27.9%. Special fees for individual online programs: No 81,2%, Some 13.7%, Yes 5.1%. Technology fee: No 74.6%, Some 8.1%, Yes 17.3%. Curriculum fee/course materials: No: 81.2%, Some: 17.3%, Yes 1.5%.
Figure 2: Special Fees for Online Students?

We saw the majority of institutions charge the same tuition, but some add on extra fees.  We asked about a variety of fees (see Figure 2) that could be charged by an institution.   A “Some” response covers institutions where a fee might be charged in some of the college’s programs, but not all.   For each type of fee, about one-fifth to two-fifths of institutions charge that fee.

For future research, I would like to check the data on both the tuition and the fee questions.  I am very curious to learn how many institutions actually charge more in overall price.  Some institutions might put the extra cost in tuition and some in extra fees, depending on local rules and custom.  About half charge more in tuition. What would that percentage increase when adding in those that charge extra fees?

Cost vs. Price

Sometimes people get confused over the concepts of cost and price in higher education. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s begin by defining some terms.

“Cost” is the actual amount that an institution would need to spend to create, offer, and maintain the course.   About a decade ago, the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems partnered with WCET to create the Technology Costing Methodology (TCM), which is a set of step-by-step procedures allowing institutions to analyze the costs of alternative modes of instruction.

In working on TCM, it always amazed me how many institutions did not want to know their cost.  For those who don’t know their costs, it makes it impossible to have cost-based pricing.  Continuing education units tend to have a good handle on their costs, while I have observed that to be less true in the main part of campus.

“Price” is the amount (tuition plus fees) that an institution charges a student to take that course.   Price can be cost-based, as is often found in continuing education programs.  It can be based on what they market can bear, as was demonstrated in the Master’s program referenced earlier.    For many public institutions, the tuition component on price is based on a figure that is incrementally increased by a governing board.  For public institutions, tuition often reflects what is politically feasible.  There is a nod to costs, but not necessarily a real correlation.

Cost Recovery/Marginal-Cost Pricing Model

With the exception of the Master’s program that could charge what it pleased, all the other programs presented to the Indiana Commission used what appeared to be cost recovery or marginal-cost pricing model.

Let’s begin with the cost to an institution for offering a traditional, face-to-face course.  The major cost for the course is the faculty person, who designs the course, does an instructional design (like making Powerpoints and handouts), teaches the course, tutors students, and performs the assessment.

Now let’s have that the same faculty person teach an online course.  If you begin with the assumption that the faculty person will perform all the same roles as the face-to-face class, you already have a base cost that is the same as for the face-to-face course.  Add to that are the costs of technology, instructional design support, stipends for the faculty person to teach the course, student technology support, and payments back to the department.

If you start with the same basic cost (the faculty person) and add more costs, the course simply must cost more. If you use the cost recovery model, then this added cost is reflected in the push for higher tuition or extra fees for online courses.  But, is this the only model??

It’s the People

One of the major lessons from Technology Costing Methodology was summed up in the phrase, “it’s the people, stupid.”  We found again and again that the greatest cost of a technology-mediated course is the amount of personnel (faculty, instructional designers, teaching assistants, etc.) incorporated into the course.  In other industries, lower overall costs have been achieved by replacing labor with capital (see marginal rate of technical substitution) or by replacing more expensive labor with less expensive labor.

And here’s where I will get people upset and where many leaders want to run away…to address the cost issue, you have to think about using people (especially faculty) differently than in the traditional, face-to-face classroom model.

If You Want to Lower Costs and Price, You Must Make it an Explicit Goal

I am reminded of a meeting I had when I was in North Dakota when I coordinated the video conference network and distance education activities for the University System. At least once each year I would visit each campus to make sure that we were meeting their needs.  During our first year, a faculty group at one of the campuses requested to meet with me about the emerging Interactive Video Network.

Early in the meeting, a faculty representative asked me, “We just don’t see how the video network will result in saving money.”

My answer was:  “It won’t.”  I proceeded to explain how the mission of our distance education work was to expand access.  The two largest universities are located within about a mile of the Minnesota border in a state that is about 350 miles wide.  Additionally, other institutions had unique programs that could be made available to residents of a rural and sparsely populated state.  My mission wasn’t about containing costs, but expanding access.

The faculty representative looked quizzically at his colleagues.  He then turned to me and said, “Yes, but we still don’t understand how this will save money.”

This faculty person, Indiana Commission members, and many of the reporters in the articles cited above hold the assumption that just because technology is involved that costs (and ultimately price) should eventually  be lower.  It can happen, but it’s not automatic.

In my experience, the only time when costs and price are lowered is when those reductions are an explicit goal.   There are examples of this including the Open University of the United Kingdom, Rio Salado College and the work of the National Center for Academic Transformation.  By the way, for those of you who are ready to shout “what about quality,” I think that these examples addressed maintaining a focus on quality.  That is not always the case, as shown in the research cited in the Fox News Business article.  Just because it is not always  the case, it does not mean that it can’t be the case.

My parting advice to Indiana’s Commissioners:  Set a goal that you want specific programs that costs less, has a lower price, and maintains quality.  Charge the institutions to return with a plan as to how they propose to meet that goal.  Don’t micromanage. Lead.

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Categories
Uncategorized

House Votes to Repeal State Authorization (and Reciprocity Update)

Just when I was thinking that it was time for an update on state authorization regulations, the U.S. House of Representatives schedules a vote on the subject.  Wow!  Were they ever accommodating!

What are next steps? What is the impact on state regulations? Why am I so out-of-step with the higher education community?  What are solutions? Let’s examine these questions.

H.R. 2117 Passes the House

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced H.R.2117 (the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act) last year.  The bill targets the “state authorization” and “definition of the credit hour” regulations implemented by the U.S. Department of Education in October 2010.  If the bill is signed into law, the “regulations (including any supplement or revision to such regulations) are repealed and shall have no legal effect.”

The debate focused on the familiar themes.  One side saw the regulations as an overreach by the federal government into academic affairs and state autonomy.  The other side pressed the need to maintain accountability for the use of federal financial aid dollars.

Only one of five amendments was successful in being adopted.  Rep. Foxx amended her own bill to end the definition of “contact hours” as part of the definition of “credit hours.”

Photo of the feet of an adult showing a young child ballet steps
I’ve never been a dancer, but I’m finding that I’m out-of-step with the higher education establishment on state authorization.

The bill passed on a 303 – 114 vote with 69 Democrats crossing the aisle to join the Republicans in support.

The next stop is the Senate, which already has companion bill S. 1297 that was introduced in June of last year.  That bill has already been assigned to Sen. Harkin’s HELP (Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions) Committee. Despite the HELP Committee having held several hearings since last summer, that bill has not seen the light of day.  Given Sen. Harkin’s penchant for more oversight of financial aid dollars, it will probably find tough sledding in the Committee and in finding the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Senate filibuster.

But, This Has No Impact on State Regulations.  Right?

I still have a problem with the state authorization part of this action.  Perhaps the credit hour regulation needed to be tossed, but the arguments against authorization ring hollow to me.

In past blog posts, both guest bloggers and I have repeatedly said that each individual state’s regulations predated the federal regulation and they will remain even if the federal regulation is repealed.

On Being Out-of-Step with Higher Education Organizations

Obviously, I’m out-of-step with the higher education powers-that-be as ACE, CHEA, and dozens of other higher education organizations came out in support of this legislation.  Their comments reflected those found on the House’s Education & the Workforce Committee’s website:

“The state authorization regulation forces states to follow federal requirements when deciding whether to grant a college or university permission to operate within the state. This one-size-fits-all requirement piles unnecessary costs on states, colleges, and students, and could pave the way for future overreach into higher education.”

Except that the federal state authorization regulation required that institutions follow the state laws of each state, which is hardly a “one-size-fits-all requirement.”  ACE, CHEA, and the other higher education organizations focused on the burden on institutions, which are considerable, and exaggerated the relief that would be realized if this bill passed.  Their focus on institutions is understandable, but I wish the House members would have offered a credible alternative instead of a straight repeal.

During the debate, Rep. Austria from Ohio stated how this legislation would save Central Christian University from having to seek approval in 15 states.  The only way that happens is by not following the existing laws in each state.  I don’t see how the Representative, ACE, CHEA, and others can hold any credibility in talking about quality in higher education, if we’re asking distance education providers to ignore state laws.  If that’s the case, I’m happy to be out-of-step.

Am I saying that we should maintain the current, burdensome, confusing, and costly morass of regulations?  Absolutely not!  Real solutions take work and reciprocity is a real solution.

Reciprocity is the Way to Go

Last week, I was at meetings of the Advisory Committee and Drafting Team of the reciprocity project being run by the Presidents’ Forum of Excelsior College and the Council of State Governments.  The Advisory Committee gave great input on an initial draft of a reciprocal agreement.  The Drafting Team is working on incorporating suggested changes before sharing another draft with the Advisory Committee.

Meanwhile, WICHE and the other regional higher education compacts (SREB, NEBHE, and MHEC) are considering what their roles should be in promoting interstate reciprocity.   We’re working on getting everyone to work together on reciprocity plans.

The current goal of the Presidents’ Forum is to have a draft available for public comment by the end of April.  After that, the agreement needs to be finalized, states need to be recruited, and most states will require legislation to change their laws so that they can participate in reciprocity.  This means that state legislative action will probably take place in 2013 or beyond.  The first relief that any institution will enjoy from reciprocity probably won’t come until the summer of 2013…and only if your state has joined the agreement.

This work is tough.  This work takes time.

We’re working on real solutions.  I hope that distractions, like H.R. 2117, don’t keep us from meeting the sometimes competing needs of maintaining consumer protection and reducing regulatory burdens.

WCET State Authorization Update Webcast

On March 14, WCET is hosting a state authorization webcast for its members.  Registration information will be available soon.  The session will include updates on the federal regulation, the APSCU lawsuit, state regulations, reciprocity agreements, what institutions are doing, and other related issues.  We will also have ample time to address participant’s questions.

Happy Leap Day!

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Photo credit: Morgue file – http://morguefile.com/archive/display/540927

Categories
Practice

Competencies, Badges, and OER top Predictions for 2012

Thank you to everyone who participated in our call for elearning predictions for 2012.  We received quite a variety of opinions on what we can expect for the coming year. There seemed to be plenty of worries about what others will do to us rather than for us.  The impacts of competencies and badges are on the minds of several of us.

By far, my favorite submission was from Catherine Kelley of Fairleigh Dickinson University.   It is far too true:

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. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-device-desirable-old-device-undesirable,2862/)

Been there.  Love it!

Myk Garn holding a certificate
Myk Garn, SREB, holding his treasured “WCET Seeing the Future” badge for insightful predicting for 2011.

I tried my best to make a compilation of the predictions.  Below I have them listed.  For those with more than one submission, I put the number in parentheses:

  • A greater moved to competency-based education, including attention to the developing concept of offering many more “badges” at the sub-degree level (5).
  • Adoption of open educational resources will expand greatly and there will be additional tension with proprietary providers (3).
  • New elearning-based colleges will emerge (2).
  • Accreditation will face additional attacks and adverse consequences (2).
  • A significant number of colleges will shift to the new LMS products announced last year or yet-to-be-announced in 2012 (2).
  • There will be more federal and state legislation of distance education.
  • ‘Student learning rights’ will be debated.
  • There will be a noticeable increase in the use of ‘star’ faculty as a marketing tool to recruit students.
  • Mobile apps will improve, including tactile and smelling sensors.
  • 2012 will be the year of the hybrid course.
  • A state will make an institution an “example case” in state authorization.
  • There will be more doubts raised about the worth of higher education.
  • Most colleges will struggle mightily to address the question of affordability.

Here are the full predictions with their authors noted:

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 (sim. StraighterLine).

Richard Hezel
President & CEO
Hezel Associates

= = = = = = = = = = =

In 2012 we will see the vast majority of new learning platform wins for online programs to go to multi-tenant cloud providers.

Phil Hill
Executive Vice President
Delta Initiative, Inc.

= = = = = = = = = = =

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.

Marie A. Cini
Vice President & Dean
The Undergraduate School
University of Maryland University College Adelphi, MD

= = = = = = = = = = =

I have two major predictions for 2012:

(1) Mobile smartphones and tablets will incorporate more sensory tactile and augmented reality screen features for learning as well as the introduction of sensory odors/smell features for teaching and learning.

“NASA isn’t just good for bringing you awesome space pictures; they can now help you figure out, via your iPhone, if that really is gas you’re smelling. Their chemical-sniffing device is about the size of a postage stamp and plugs into the iPhone to collect and transmit data from its sensor. It uses a “sample jet” to detect chemicals like ammonia, chlorine gas, and methane, even in low concentration. The device’s multiple-channel silicon-based sensing chip consists of 64 nanosensors; after analyzing a sample it can send data via a telephone network or Wi-Fi.”

(2) Someone will develop a “converter app” that will allow downloading of any app (Apple or Android) on any device.

Robbie K. Melton
Associate Vice Chancellor
Academic Affairs
Tennessee Board of Regents

= = = = = = = = = = =

2012 will be known as the year of the hybrid course, as increasing numbers of students achieve learning objectives through a combination of online assignments and in-class discussions.  Many hybrid courses will decrease class utilization by one-third (going to a twice-weekly class format).  Yet, the definition of the credit hour will remain based primarily on seat time (what I would have learned in thrice-weekly lectures).

Chuck Wight
Assoc. VP for Academic Affairs
University of Utah

= = = = = = = = =

I think that competency-based education will be of more interest as well as the idea that learners cannot be held back by the cohorts that they are placed within traditional educational models.  Students will become more aware of other models of learning that either can accelerate them when they attain mastery or decelerate them when they are meeting up against obstacles or finding that the learning takes longer than expected.

Alice Stefaniak
Learning Resource Specialist
Western Governors University

= = = = = = = = = =

Here are my predictions – some serious, some tongue in cheek. Some are way out on a limb but I think plausible.

  1. The Federal government will come out with at least one new rule or regulation that will make us gnash our collective teeth for at least six months. This rule or regulation will demonstrate considerable ignorance about distance learning, the Internet, or both. If implemented, it will costs us a lot of money. WCET will rally the troops to fight this rule or regulation, and it will be temporarily stalled. (oh wait, this already happened!! But I have no doubt at all that it could happen again.)
  2. There will be at least one major scandal involving the State Authorization issue. I.e., there will be a high-profile court case (or at least a major news story) involving a university that has not obtained appropriate authorization. Examples Will Be Made. Laggards will finally get the point.
  3. Another major scandal will involve accreditation. A high-profile institution will be put on probation by its accrediting agency, or a regional accrediting agency will lose its charter, or both.
  4. The big technology story of 2012 will be the ongoing fight between Open Stuff and Stuff that is Clamped Firmly Shut. This story is not new, but it will escalate dramatically in 2012. At least one major newspaper (possible) or other substantial publishing entity (more likely) will shut down for good, which will fuel this discussion even more. The discussion will get more & more ugly. There will be serious and ever more clever attempts to shut down the free exchange of ideas on the Internet. (sounds like SOPA, which I know is just about dead – but there is more coming – I have no doubt of that at all.) I’m a little afraid about how this will play out. I see it as the Titans escaping from the Titanic and defending their leaky lifeboats with heavy artillery. (but they’re still going down.)
  5. A major higher-ed technology company will be discovered to be in a state of financial crisis far deeper than anybody suspected, because of pressure from open source competitors. See prediction #4, above – it’s the same thing, really.
  6. There will be a major scandal having to do with privacy or security involving Facebook. (a hack or data leak or something like it.) As a result of this scandal, people will almost entirely stop using Facebook.

Catherine L. Kelley
Associate Provost for Educational Resources and Assessment
Fairleigh Dickinson University

= = = = = = = = = = =

–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.

–Student Services online- As E-learning divisions and schools as part of our institutions grow, new and innovative solutions need to be created to have the same services as our face to face. Library-(do we need a Digital Librarian?) Tutoring, advisement, linking to student clubs and the list goes on.

Patricia D. Fenn
Executive Director of E-Learning
Ocean County College

= = = = = = = = = = =

This may fall more into the category of my hope rather than my prediction, but here goes:

2012 will see recognition by colleges and universities that badges and certifications, where they may be created from  the reverse engineering of a degree into courses and then into specific, measurable learning objectives of the courses, does not threaten the integrity of a degree, undermine the contributions of curriculum committees, or devalue  the expertise of faculty.  Instead, the ability to measure and recognize (e.g. badges and certifications) the accomplishment of learning objectives within courses can be a way to motivate students, provide for a more flexible path towards degree attainment, create more revenue opportunities with stand-alone certificate modules, reinvent the course as a more cost effective way to attain a degree than the cobbling together of certificates, and (for all these reasons)  better demonstrate to employers and the public of the worth of a college degree.

Deb Adair
Quality Matters

= = = = = = = = = = = =

From my vantage point as a “retiree”, I do not feel qualified to make any predictions about the ins and outs of evolving technology but I do have the advantage of being sufficiently removed from the “action” to see the broader landscape…here goes.

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.  No one is going to do anything but make “noise” this year but NEXT year, some of the real frustrations about the state of higher education will finally draw action.  By that I mean, there will be consequences.  What are the key issues which might be targeted in 2013?

Questions about what is higher education supposed to do for young people?  (Increasingly, the business community says graduates are not prepared to work, have little understanding of the business culture and in fact, have to be “retooled” by the community itself.)

The issue of accreditation…..it may become irrelevant as new procedures are developed which gain legitimacy over the “old ways”.

The growth of open source learning and what to do about it…that could really explode NEXT year.

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.

Fran Kelly
Retired (Yet Active) Sage

= = = = = = = = = = =

I would like to add the following 2012 predictions to your list:

  • 1-2 community college systems will announce their plans to launch an open course project similar to Washington’s Open Course Library
  • Desire2Learn, SoftChalk, and Instructure will be sold  at some point this year
  • More institutions will require students to use e-textbooks or print them at a reduced cost

Kelvin Bentley
Senior Strategy Consultant, Expanded Presence
Blackboard, Inc

= = = = = = = = = = = =

  1. Legislators will begin to share “model policy” templates to direct online learning development in higher education as they have been in K12.
  2. The issues of “student learning rights” will get more discussion in postsecondary forums driven by the K12 efforts in California and the 10 Elements of the Digital Learning Now agenda.
  3. Online providers will begin to recruit “star” faculty who will draw students into their programs.
  4. An online provider will begin marketing to adjunct faculty the ability to start their own storefront for offering courses creating an online university that is a collection of independent contract educators.
  5. Emphasis on establishing explicit, measurable competencies for college courses will increase.
  6. New assessment tools that use technology to measure verbal input, context in writing and media in e-portfolios will see greater use and acceptance.

Myk Garn
Director, Educational Technology
Southern Regional Education Board

= = = = = = = = = = =

Finally, I thought I would take a shot at it:

  • A few accredited institutions will aggressively pursue creating and offering competency-based “badges” for subsections of their curriculum.
  • A few institutions will make real headway in addressing the ever-growing question of the affordability of higher education.  Most will talk about the issue, but make no real strides at improvement.

If you have comments on any of these prognostications or you wish to add your own, please do so in the comment section.

Let’s see what happens in the coming year and review the results in 2013.  Have a great year.

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

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Categories
Uncategorized

Reviewing US News Release of Honor Rolls of Online Education

The moment has arrived.  The ‘mother of all rankings,’ also known as the US News and World Report rankings, have birthed their newest baby where they list the “Top Online Programs.”  Rather than an overall institutional ranking they have created “Honor Rolls” of the top programs in:  bachelor’s degree and graduate degrees in business, education, engineering, information technology, and nursing.

We have followed this idea from when it was first announced last summer.  On first glance, many of our initial reservations are confirmed, we found a few things that we like, and see a new concern.  We’ll give you some background and our initial reactions.

WCET’s History with the US News Rankings

In July, WCET hosted a webcast with Bob Morse and Eric Brooks from US News and World Report to try to better understand how these rankings would work.  We came away almost as empty-handed as we went into the conversation.  The one nugget we carried out was that while the methodology for determining the rankings had yet to be set, data was being collected and this first survey and ranking would advise the methodology for future rankings.  In early September, we followed up with a blog post to share our impressions, as well as those from some of our higher education friends.  To say the least, we were not hopeful at that time that the process would produce useful results.

One of our members, Capella University’s President Deborah Bushway, wrote an article for the Huffington Post about why Capella would not be participating in the US New Rankings.   We heard from several other members that they would not be participating for many of the same reasons Dr. Bushway cites – the focus on inputs rather than outputs and the lack of a ranking methodology.

What We Observe Now that the Rankings are Released

Photo of gourds at a fair with blue and red ribbons
Judging online programs like produce at a county fair…appearance over substance.

The rankings were just released, so we will give you our initial reaction to what has been published:

‘Honor Roll’ Not Rankings.  We were glad to see that they used an ‘Honor Roll’ for the top programs in each section.  Given the imprecise science of rankings, this makes more sense than an absolute ordinal scale.  Even so, they went ahead and ranked within each subcategory.

Small Number of Usable Surveys.  US News sent out nearly 2,000 surveys and received 969 responses for the Online Bachelor’s Degree category. Yet, few responses were usable. The Bachelor’s Degree rankings had the most responses (194) and not all of those could be used.  Many institutions appear to be in the final rankings even though they were not able to respond to all of the subcategories.

Overall Methodology is Still Questionable.  The small number of useful surveys speaks to the scattershot methodology used by US News.  We would have thought that they would have engaged experts to develop questions and then pilot test the survey on a sample of institutions.   Instead they seemed to develop questions and assign point values based on “interviews with decision makers in high-enrollment online bachelor’s degree programs, online education literature reviews, and pre-existing U.S. News ranking practices.”  They did interview people at distance education programs, but that is far different than fully engaging people cognizant of online education policies in developing the questions.  As a result, this survey became a large-scale pilot test with questions that many institutions could not or would not answer.

Questions Focused on Inputs, Not Outcomes.  The survey is almost completely focused on inputs to the educational experience. With the focus on outcomes by accreditors, the Department of Education, and institutions, this seems like a major problem.

Scattershot Question Asking.  From the methodology: “Once the survey deadline passed, U.S. News analyzed the quantity and quality of data collected to determine which questions could be used for rankings.”  Instead of focusing on a few pre-tested questions that would lead to assessing quality, the survey was a smorgasbord of questions that they decided whether or not to use in the end.  That’s a fairly disrespectful use of staff time at our nation’s colleges and universities.  Also, institutional personnel could have suffered from ‘survey fatigue’ and not answered some questions only to learn later that they skipped a crucial question.

Specific Questions Showed Lack of Knowledge about Online Education.  There were several head-scratching examples of questions and weightings.  There were several places where there was no understanding of the nuance of what actually happens on campus.  Here are a couple examples that we found in our short time analyzing the results:

  • The criterion “training required in online teaching best practices before instructors are allowed to teach” is scored on an affirmative response receiving the full 10 points.  Presumably a negative response receives zero.  This misses the wide array of possibilities in between. It is often hard to get a faculty requirement such as this.  There are many effective non-required faculty development efforts.  Is a one-hour cursory required training session worth 10 points, while an in-depth training experience that 80% of faculty complete worth nothing?
  • Why does “Corresponding undergraduate programs ABET accredited” rate 20 out of 100 points in the “Student engagement and accreditation ranking?”  It might be a valid criteria (or might not), but why is it paired with student engagement issues?  Nowhere else to put it?
  • Under the Bachelors survey section on “Student engagement and assessment ranking” the “Additional indicators (2)” criterion scores several aspects of faculty feedback availability and timing.  This assumes a model that not all institutions are using.

Many have said that it is important to measure online learning, but it is essential to use the correct tool.  A ruler is a valid measuring tool, but there are better options if you are trying to determine someone’s weight.

Honor Roll Weirdness.  While we like that they use the Honor Role, we found some oddities. The way onto this list is: “A program made the Top Online Bachelor’s Degrees Honor Roll if it was ranked in the top one third of all three indicators: faculty credentials and training, student engagement and assessment, and student services and technology.”  Only 55 of the 194 responding institutions were able to be ranked in the “faculty credentials and training” category.  The questions this raises:

  • If it was so difficult for institutions, was it a valid set of criteria?
  • Institutions were penalized or helped by the small number completing the faculty section.  For example, Central Michigan University fell just beyond the top-third in the faculty section, but was in the top third for the other two categories. If just a small handful of institutions had answered the faculty section to US News’ satisfaction, they would have made the Honor Roll. In essence they were penalized by the vagaries of how many answered and the difficulty in answering this section

Pushing Students to a Lead Aggregation Tool.  When you get to the US News site, they prominently display a link to their “Degree Finder Tool.”  This is one of those annoying lead aggregation sites, that asks for your email address on the third page. They sell these leads and the person who gives their contact information will undoubtedly get bombarded by recruiters.

Conclusions

A recent Washington Post article highlights the pervasive proliferation of rankings – the oldest and well known such as the US News rankings to the downright silly like the hairiest students.  The methodologies for collecting data for these rankings vary from surveys of college administrators to allowing anyone with an email address to rate, rank, grade, or otherwise comment on the rigor, friendliness, drugginess, or hairiness of a college.

Of course, a single ranking on a basketful of criteria is a questionable undertaking in any case.  How would you rank the best food, car, pet, or television show?  Certainly, you have your opinion, but would that be the same opinion held by your spouse, your parents, your children, that weird neighbor down the street, or someone from a completely different geographic and economic background?

In short, there is an absurdity to many of these rankings and the fact that no matter how much any of us may hate them, there’s not much we can do about them.

Or is there?  If we were to create a culture of transparency throughout higher education, with institutions sharing data openly, publicly and giving students tools to make informed decisions, would the rankings live on?  If we were accountable to ourselves and our students, would we need to use the arbitrary rankings in our marketing?

For now, these rankings are a part of our world, they infiltrate the work that we do and unduly influence our students.  At the very least we should strive to understand them.

Bottom line:  US News and the rest of us can do better.

Blog Post co-authored by:

Russ Poulin, Deputy Director, Research & Analysis, rpoulin@wiche.edu
Cali Morrison, Manager, Major Grants, cmorrison@wiche.edu

WCET:  wcet.wiche.edu

Support our work.  Join WCET.

Photo Credit:  Morgue File http://morguefile.com/archive/display/222769

Categories
Practice

WCET’s Top Six 2011 Elearning Predictions

In the first week of 2011, WCET’s Frontiers blog posted predictions solicited from leaders of our organization and leaders in community of technology-mediated education.  We asked them to predict something that will happen in 2011 about teaching, learning, technology, business of elearning policy, regulations, student behavior, or other related items.

Now, it’s a year later.  The crystal balls for some of our prognosticators must have been highly polished as they did quite well.  In this post we’ll review some of the predictions and ask you to make your own predictions for 2012.

In descending order, her are the top six predictions that were made:

#6 Budget Pressures Will Change What We Do

Linda Thor, Chancellor, Foothill-De Anza Community College District, and former WCET Executive Committee Member predicted that: “the intersection of two pressures–budget reductions and the completion agenda–will finally lead higher education faculty and staff to collaborate across institutions to scale best practices and reduce unnecessary duplication in elearning.”

Photo of a Crystal Ball
Shine your crystal ball and make your prediction about elearning for 2012

Rhonda Epper, Assistant Provost, Colorado Community College System, Chair of the WCET Executive Committee predicted that:  “As institutional budgets remain constrained in 2011, policy leaders will increasingly look to online learning as a solution to providing access to greater numbers of students.  At the same time, we will see more backlash and questioning of the quality of online learning as a result of the fallout from improprieties in the for-profit sector, as well as from traditional faculty who are: a) concerned about job security, or b) genuinely concerned with the unchecked growth and quality of online learning.”

David Cillay, Executive Director, Center for Distance and Professional Education, Washington State University predicted that “as budgets get tighter, colleges and universities will look to online and continuing education as a solution for this shortfall. This will result in closer alignment of online and continuing education units with the general university.”

It probably was not difficult to foresee that the recession and related budget woes would have a significant impact on elearning, but each of these experts envisioned different results. Whether it was Congressional hearings, the Department of Education, faculty, or the press, we heard plenty of questions about distance education.  David Cillay’s prediction about the alignment of online and continuing education units fits in with the Managing Online Education survey results that most institutions are undergoing restructuring of these activities.

#5 State Authorization Regulation’s Impact is Different than What We Originally Thought

Bruce Chaloux, Director, Student Access Programs and Services and Director, SREB’s Electronic Campus, Southern Regional Education Board predicted that “the recent hullabaloo over the federal regulations concerning out-of-state approval/licensure will not have the kind of impact that many are fearing. Creative strategies for out-of-state licensure/approval that focus on reciprocity across state and regional boundaries will win out. A workable framework will be established upon which to build such a process.”

Remember that this was written late in 2010 and we were still trying to figure out the meaning of ‘state authorization’  Despite what some may say (or hope), this issue has not gone away. Authorization did have an impact in 2011, but maybe not what we expected. Certainly, both Bruce and I were consumed by this issue at times last year and we jointly attended numerous meetings about it. We are both greatly involved in the current efforts to create reciprocity agreements.  Unfortunately, such agreements are not easy and will take some time.  In any case…even if the federal regulation is on hold or repealed, the states still expect you to follow their laws. State authorization isn’t going away.  More to come on it…and other regulations…in 2012.

#4 Mobile Technologies will Have a Growing Educational Impact

Ellen Wagner, WCET’s Executive Director, also predicted that: “Mobile learning in all of its rich and nuanced forms will finally become an obvious, self-evident solution for learning because we are finally focusing on meeting the needs of learners who are mobile.”

Rhonda Epper predicted that: “eBooks will continue to gain traction as students become increasingly comfortable with the digital format.”

In 2011, mobile versions of course management systems were released, ipads and tablet computers exploded have captured the market, and even grandmas and grandpas are getting  ebook readers or smartphones.   While most institutions are still trying to figure out how to implement mobile learning, the foundation has been laid for even more use of mobile devices in education.

#3 “Openness” was Everywhere in 2011

David Porter, Executive Director, BCcampus predicted that “all the good work that has happened on the “open frontier” supported initially by individual leaders and special projects will begin to coalesce around a federation of practitioners who *will* agree on a core set of principles and practices to make “open” a sustainable mainstream model of practice.”

Cable Green, Director of Global Learning, Creative Commons (formerly Director of eLearning & Open Education, Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges) hoped that K-20 educational institutions make “open licensing on all publicly funded content” the default… rather than the exception.

Scott Leslie, Client Services Manager, BCcampus and “Raving Educational Technologist” predicted that 2011 will be the year of the OpenTextbook. Textbook costs are out of sight, the economy is not going to get significantly better, and institutions and students are going to need to look to any place they can cut costs. This is prime, and unlike other OER projects in the past, there is a real and pressing internal economic need and motivator to make this happen…2011 will represent the year when this approach “crosses the chasm” – not only will we see many more new OpenTextbook projects, but we will see new authoring platforms and strategies that include campus bookstores and libraries.

Paul Stacey, yet another BCcampus colleague, wrote a spectacular review of last year as “The Year of Open.”  In that blog piece, he chronicles the many advances in open content, OER, MOOC, open licensing, open textbooks, and many more.  To continue the forward momentum of the open movement, Creative Commons hired Cable Green as their full-time educational evangelist. The U.S. Department of Labor announced the first recipients of its massive TAACCCT grants creating open courses and opponents moved to kill it.  On the open textbook front, the idea of cutting students costs by replacing materials from publishers gained steam.  In the last couple weeks, legislators in California and Washington announced their intention to introduce legislation supporting online texts in selected subjects.

#2 Analytics Will be the Buzz Phrase of the Year

Ellen Wagner, WCET’s Executive Director, predicted thatAnalytics will be the buzz phrase of the year. Much in the way that term ‘Web 2.0’ became a cliché of the past five years, the word ‘analytics’ will become a cliché for this next five.”

Phil Ice, Director of Course Design, Research and Development, American Public University System predicted that “Over the last eighteen months there has been a great deal of talk about predictive analytics for elearning. While there are some decent products in the market, the fact is that there are none that are truly predictive. Rather current, commercially available applications rely on basic descriptive or inferential techniques. By the end of this year I think that will change. The first few, truly predictive products will come to market. They will likely be far from perfect, but they will give practitioners and administrators a taste of what is possible.”

It helps that Ellen and Phil had a major project for WCET in mind.  The first phase of that project was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the results will be released in the coming months.  With the release of the film ‘Moneyball’ in 2011, the Chronicle, the Horizon Report, and others helped to make this a buzz phrase known to more than just the data geeks.  It wasn’t just Brad Pitt that made statistics sexy. As to Phil’s prediction on products, several sessions at the WCET Annual Conference featured the work of institutions demonstrating their analytic tools and how they convert the results into actionable information.

#1 Khan Academy will Adopt Alternative Credentialing (and Others Follow)

Myk Garn, Director, Educational Technology, Southern Regional Education Board and Co-leader of WCET’s Forging the Future Workshop predicted that: “The Khan Academy will begin awarding certificates of completion for its lessons and will enable learners to assemble lessons into course and programs of their own design. Plans will be announced for “micro-credentials” awarded for course sets.  Because lessons remain free, no federal support will be needed, so Kahn announces it will not seek accreditation but will rely on “market validation” of learner-designed credentials.  The Gates Foundation doubles its support.”

Indeed, the Khan Academy, joined the 2011-craze of offering “badges” to those who successfully master content.  Not part of the prediction was the move by Mozilla and the MacArthur Foundation to create Open Badges.  While the Gates Foundation, which previously contributed $2M, did not double its support, the O’Sullivan Foundation gave $5M in November “to grow the faculty of the Khan Academy; extend the content to include crowd-sourced contributions; and to develop curricula for a blended physical and virtual academic experience.”

Congratulations to Myk Garn for the #1 prediction for 2011.  The choice was made by WCET staff using the time-honored “we know it when we see it” criteria.  As a result, Dr. Garn will receive the first “WCET Seeing the Future” badge and all the rights, privileges, and honors appertaining thereto.  Good thing we have him co-leading our Forging the Future workshop again in 2012.

Make Your Prediction for 2012

You are invited to join in the fun for 2012.  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 “2012 Prediction” by January 18  January 20.

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.

Photo Credit:  Morgue File – http://morguefile.com/archive/display/745798

Categories
Practice

Onsite and Online learning: A Meaningful Distinction Any Longer?

Several years ago, it became clear that eportfolios were going to have a lasting impact in higher education.  At that time, WCET conducted (now dated) research on the emerging eportfolio products.  As an update, we asked Trent Batson of the Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-based Learning (www.aaeebl.org) and long-time WCET friend Gary Brown to comment on the online learning debate and the value of eportfolios.  Thank you Gary and Trent.  – Russ Poulin

In a WCET blog by Diane Goldsmith last summer (at that time WCET’s Steering Committee Chair), Diane ruminated on the persistent and short-sighted criticism from various quarters about the quality of online learning.  Diane suggested it’s time online educators become more aggressive in response to such criticism.

We agree.  (And implications of recent books like Academically Adriftmake a pretty clear argument that renewed attention to quality of education is not solely in the province of the “online” educator.) However, as ePortfolio researchers, from our vantage the debate has even more interesting implications.  After all, almost all educational experiences, no matter where they occur, are now online to some degree.  Since most new human knowledge is available online, most research uses digital instrumentation and online databases.  Most formal educational experiences involve to some degree email, the search and social capabilities of the Web, and many other Web-based applications.

Photo of Gary Brown
Gary Brown, Portland State University

The Web and the Internet extend learning beyond the walls of the classroom, but even in the classroom, some of the interaction and group work may well involve online applications.  Maybe more importantly and as recently identified by David Brooks in the Chronicle of Higher Education, , our web presence is increasingly inseparable from our professional identities.  As Brooks observes:

The process of crafting my teaching portfolio and developing an online version challenged me to clarify my intellectual concerns, to sift through my thoughts about teaching, and to hone my research ideas and conclusions, as well as to become a bit more tech savvy.  (Para 21).

If as educators we are redefining ourselves digitally, it hardly makes sense to hold fast to an increasingly arbitrary distinction. And could we ever really claim that important academic learning does not occur outside of the curriculum and classroom?

The presumption that students in a completely online course cannot have the real-life social interactions and informal learning opportunities is, ironically, an unreal argument.  Imaginatively designed courses leverage the experiences learners have wherever they reside. Distributed learners, after all, don’t just spontaneously coalesce from a cloud of pixels simply because they have walked into a classroom. And even the most die-hard traditionalist will admit that a successful learner must log focused hours reading, writing, studying, and thinking outside of the classroom.

Photo of Trent Babson
Trent Batson, AAEEBL

An inclusive view of online and onsite understands that even an onsite course might also be essentially completely online as in, for example, a studio-writing course –one that teaches writing through writing.  And, an online course can in fact be more interactive and student-centered than many courses taught on a campus, for instance a distributed service learning project in which students collaborate online to solve real problems in the communities where they live.

Mode of delivery and quality are largely unrelated.  Learning design is the salient factor.

Though it is not entirely understood yet in many (and often critical) quarters, the debate between online and traditional courses is over. Pondering the evolution of the change, however, we are reminded of Arthur C. Clarke’s observation that transformations that attend new technologies are usually over estimated in the short run and underestimated in the long run.

Think of the subtle but profound shift in our world that accompanied the spread of mobile phones—we no longer call a place in search of a person.  We call the person.  We don’t ask, “Is Diane there?”  We say, “Hi Diane, where are you?”

The emergence of ePortfolios embodies a similar distinction and, as a technology being implemented in both traditional and online courses, brings us back to the transpiring transformation. With ePortfolios we no longer teach a class presuming the presence of a learner; we teach learners whose learning extends beyond the boundaries of our classes—in space and in time.

A student focused ePortfolio dissolves boundaries by helping students integrate their experience among courses and life.  (See Helen Barrett’s work–http://electronicportfolios.com/ for examples of ePortfolios that cross generations.)  With ePortfolios, the locus of learning is not bounded by brick or LMS. Learning is not contained in a single body of disciplinary content. We no longer focus our teaching on a room full of students situated in a single time and place; we contribute to the lifelong learning of students.

ePortfolios embody the potential of profound long range change.  They are mobile, staying with the student, and they help us see that all learning now has become untethered from a single locus.

Unlike the traditional versus online debate, it is a distinction that matters.

Gary Brown
Director, Center for Online Learning
Portland State University
browng@pdx.edu

Trent Batson
Executive Director
The Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-based Learning
trentbatson@mac.com

WCET logo

Join WCET!  Support our work.