Categories
Practice

The North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO)

Today’s guest blog comes to us from our WICHE colleagues Pat Shea and Catherine Weldon who run an innovative program to bring sophisticated science into the virtual hands of online students.

NANSLO represents an international collaborative partnership between postsecondary institutions in the U.S. and Canada. The collaboration will result in the development of online science course materials for critical gatekeeper courses of physics, biology, and chemistry for first year students interested in considering science as a major. The project started in May of 2011 and will conclude in December of 2012 and is funded through a grant from the Next Generation Learning Challenges.

The most significant outcome of the project has been the dedication and hard work on the part of faculty members at our partner institutions.  Faculty members work together in discipline panels, based on their expertise. Most recently, the panels have completed development of laboratory exercises that complement the core NANSLO online curriculum. These laboratory exercises are known as Remote Web-based Science Labs (RWSL). An RWSL exercise makes use of remotely accessible scientific equipment through use of robotics and software over the Internet.

HOW DO STUDENTS USE RWSL EXERCISES?

Accessing the RWSL exercises is easy. Students first log-in to the NANSLO website to configure basic software that launches the RWSL interface and assures access to the remote equipment. Each student receives a brief lab manual explaining the equipment, video and audio software. When connected, students are able to talk with lab technicians who work in the lab using audio software. They can also talk with other students who are logged in to use the same experiment. Up to four students can work together. One student controls the equipment at a time. Students are able to pass the controls between them in order to share use of the equipment.

WHAT DOES THE EXPERIENCE LOOK LIKE TO THE STUDENT?

Laboratory equipment, such as the microscope to the left, is equipped with a camera that views and captures high resolution images of slide samples. Additional cameras are positioned in the lab near the microscope so that students can view the microscope, lab technician, and surrounding lab equipment.  This perspective offers a view of the equipment as seen by students.

The left hand pane of the RWSL interface (shown below) provides various camera controls for manipulation of video images of the microscope and laboratory. Other controls adjust the position of the slide as well as the microscope’s magnification. Students can view the microscope as they change its magnification via the use of Picture in Picture whereby an imbedded image of the above video stream is presented in the bottom left-hand corner of the interface. In the right hand pane of the RWSL interface, you can see the slide sample.

WHY IS NANSLO IMPORTANT?

Students enrolled through Colorado Community College Online are the first students in the U.S. to make use of RWSL exercises in their first semester physics, biology or chemistry science courses. CCCS believes that RWSL is critical for the following reasons:

  • RWSL extends access to science lab sections for students studying online. Studying science, when a lab section is typically required, is difficult for students studying via online classes.  Most online students are older, work part-time or full-time and have difficulty scheduling in-class lab time. RWSL affords the same flexibility of online learning to the online lab experience. Student engagement in online science courses taught online is also very important. Online science classes, that include lab experiments, typically require that students purchase Lab Kits consisting of very simple equipment and household items for use in conducting science experiments. Often these kits are sufficient for basic experiments. RWSL complements the Kits and adds access to advanced experiments and expensive equipment. Student response to the RWSL experience illustrates their excitement with the most basic of experiments. Access to accurate scientific data makes RWSL authentic for them.This international project has the potential to deepen student engagement in online science courses and enable more students, especially those who find it difficult to take classes on campus, or to persist in science-related programs. The project will expand access and address persistence barriers by offering quality alternatives to gatekeeper science courses offered in traditional classroom settings.
  • Rigorous RWSL promotes academic acceptance of online education.  Over the years, many instructors across academic disciplines have resisted online learning. In science, the primary cause of skepticism stems from concern that students are unable to use real lab equipment to gather and analyze real scientific data.  A “hands-on” experience is perceived to be critical for students.  NANSLO faculty members generally agree that remote access to scientific equipment will be soon be commonplace in undergraduate education. Widespread faculty acceptance of this fact will take time and exposure to both the concept and the equipment.  RWSL exercises provide hands-on robotic access to the finest equipment along with the ability to capture authentic data for presentation and analysis using a range of software products. The increasing rigor of RWSL exercises combined with successful student outcomes will stand as evidence for those who need objective proof of this modality’s usefulness.
  • Articulation of credit hours at four-year institutions. As the evidence of RWSL authenticity becomes well established, discussion of articulation will become ever more common. CCCS currently provides statewide articulation agreements in 11 fields from Anthropology to Spanish. Eleven other agreements are under consideration: these include physics, chemistry and biology. The only way that four-year institutions are going to accept credit for online science courses that include lab experiments is if those experiments replicate the classroom experience with a high level of rigor and authenticity. NANSLO brings faculty from four-year and two-year campuses together in development of the RWSL exercises. This teamwork is unique in higher education and serves to spark the type of dialog among instructors that is helpful in designing lab experiments at the two-year college level that meet the standards of four-year institutions.
  • Tight budgets and restricted brick-and-mortar space. Urban and rural campuses alike can benefit from extending access to high quality remote laboratory equipment. In some cases, limited space and tight capitol budgets restrict a campus’s ability to build new labs much less equip them with numerous copies of the same high quality equipment. In other cases, no money for laboratory experiments is available, period. RWSL can also bring opportunity to a range of high school programs: alternative, AP and IB (International Baccalaureate) programs all benefit. Access and rigor are available to all students who can secure broadband Internet access and a PC or Mac using Windows 7 or higher.

WHAT’S NEXT FOR NANSLO?NANSLO Participants

NANSLO is currently seeking funding from various sources to further the initiative. The NANSLO network will grow to include many more nodes (locations of remote labs) in the U.S. and Canada. We look forward to serving students at institutions across the continent. We have plans for development of a “faculty sandbox” accessible via the web where faculty can become acquainted with remote labs, collaborate in the design of new lab curriculum using them, and test the new lab exercises.  We will also have a dedicated development lab where programmers will experiment with new technologies and program equipment to perform the experiments designed by faculty in the sandbox.  We envision NANSLO including other disciplines such as geology, engineering, astronomy, allied health, and many more.  Faculty from more two-year and four-year institutions will work together to create and share course modules, increasing the likelihood that courses transfer and articulate to more institutions.   It will be very important that NANSLO research results be well disseminated in the online learning literature, and that faculty in North America become aware of the successful student perceptions and outcomes.

Project Overview: http://www.wiche.edu/nanslo

Pat Shea, NANSLO PI  pshea@wiche.edu, 303.541.0302

Catherine Weldon, NANSLO Project Coordinator  cweldon@wiche.edu, 303.541.0220

Categories
Practice

What’s on your open agenda?

Today Frontiers welcomes David Porter, Executive Director of  BCcampus which is a publicly funded organization that uses information technology to connect the expertise, programs, and resources of all B.C. post-secondary institutions under a collaborative service delivery framework.

It looks like it’s happening in a big way in 2012.  More and more policy announcements and curricular projects are validating the pioneering work of a cadre of thought leaders and academic institutions that have led the way toward a future for educational practices based on the notion of

OPENNESS.

There have been splendid examples of open thinking and open practice throughout 2011 and into 2012, quite a number of them highlighted by my colleague Paul Stacey in his Year of Open blog post in December 2011. It hasn’t stopped, and it won’t stop.

Since 2003, BCcampus, has been a conduit for government funding aimed at supporting the development of open course materials and resources. To date, our provincial government has put $9.5M into our online program development fund (OPDF) to support practices among institutions that promote collaborative approaches to the development and delivery of open educational programs.

For government, the benefit of OPDF is that it leverages the impact of its educational investment. For us, it’s a demonstration of the ethos of openness. Our institutions and instructors have all benefited from the financial support and we as an organization have been able to engage with faculty and instructors on the real benefits of openness.

Now, the time has come for us to focus on policy as another component of the open education agenda.

By Aaron Pruzaniec (Flickr) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), via Wikimedia Commons”

Let’s focus on policy

On March 26, 2012 Cable Green of Creative Commons announced the creation of an OER policy registry. The registry is designed as place to share policies and resources that support the work of open advocates globally. For us the CC Policy Registry is a welcome next step. We’ve been lobbying our own government throughout 2011, pointing to policy initiatives in neighboring jurisdictions such as Washington State, and helping our senior administrators make sense of emerging examples of open policy and legislation.

Because we are committed to move ahead on the policy front we decided to expand and communicate our own approach to open practices—practices that are under our control and that we believe will allow us to demonstrate actionable policies and strategies that others may also choose to adopt.

We started by posting our Open Agenda statement front and center on our web site. Our open policy states:

BCcampus is committed to being open in everything we do.

We are a publicly funded organization serving British Columbia’s post-secondary sector. The goal of higher education is the creation, dissemination, and preservation of knowledge, and as such we have an essential responsibility to distribute the results of our work as widely as possible.”

This has implications for how we operate on a daily basis.

Connect

Our public meetings and events are streamed live online whenever possible. We will take photos and notes of our face-to-face events, and screen shots from our online events, and post them on our web sites and through our social media accounts on Twitter and other sites. We encourage speakers and participants to do the same with slides, photos, videos, crowd-sourced notes and discussions. We will post archival video of keynote addresses, presentations, panels and discussion sessions on our web properties for anyone to view and comment on. Speakers, facilitators, and attendees of all events, online and face-to-face, will be made aware at time of registration that contributions of the community will be shared in these ways.

We are committed to open data and open information, which is about proactively releasing information to our stakeholders on an ongoing basis. We will distribute all BCcampus reports, web content, and other media resources using the Creative Commons CC-BY license.

Collaborate

We are always seeking ways to give the post-secondary system a stronger say in BCcampus strategic planning and priorities, and expanding engagement through online technologies. We will enable moderated commenting on all our web pages where appropriate, and make use of opt-in mailing lists to disseminate information and solicit feedback.

BCcampus has a solid reputation for supporting the development of open resources in the context for professional development and academic growth. Resources developed as a result of BC Online Program Development Fund (OPDF) are mandated to use an open license.

Our professional development activities through the Educational Technology Users Group and SCoPE have a long history of encouraging open sharing, reuse and remixing of knowledge and resources.

In the interests of remaining transparent in our business processes, BCcampus will refrain whenever feasible from signing non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with vendors and partners.

Innovate

We are committed to offering open data in useful formats to enable our stakeholders to leverage it in innovative and value-added ways. BCcampus supports freedom of choice in technology and where possible source files will also be made available in open and free file formats.

Our commitment to an open agenda in developing our applications and services is outlined in our Strategic Plan for 2012-15:

“The Challenge-Driven Innovation approach requires us to be more transparent than we think we are now, making our strategies, plans and key documents network-accessible to our system partners, tagging each with an open license, providing our source code for download where appropriate, and using crowdsourcing techniques to openly solicit input from stakeholders and partners in the form of challenges to be solved. CDI is about socializing responses to innovation challenges.”

 

A small step, localized for our mission, extensible to yours

While we all wait for governing bodies to get their heads into policies that will help enable more open practices on our campuses and across our systems, there are likely things you can do now to move the open agenda ahead, whether you’re an institution, a statewide consortium, or an academic department.

  • Work with your colleagues to determine which elements of your collective work can be made open and accessible, using open file formats and appropriate licenses.
  • Adapt and adopt good policies that others have made open for you to use.
  • Contribute your open policies and practices to the Creative Commons Policy Registry.
  • Tell us about it: contact us via email, twitter or through our web site and let us know how your open agenda is progressing.

David Porter, Executive Director
http://www.bccampus.ca
dporter@bccampus.ca

Categories
Practice

Mobilizing Higher Education

Today WCET Frontiers welcomes Dr. Robbie Melton, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, with the Tennessee Board of Regents, eLearning Initiative, as a guest blogger.

Mobilization (the use of mobile devices and apps) continues to change the way we communicate, conduct business, and entertain us. Higher education is not exempted from this impact. In fact, mobilization is transforming all areas of education from teaching, learning, recruiting, operations, student services, IT, and workforce development. However, many of these transformations are occurring without any strategic planning, or quality standards; nor alignment to educational goals, programs, curriculums, and student outcomes.

The latest wireless survey in 2011 by CITA noted that 91% of Americans use cell phones; up 15 million over the same time last year. It was revealed that instead of talking on their cell phones, people are now making use of many of the extras features that these smart phones and tablets are designed to provide such as browsing the Web, sending e-mail and text messages, and entertainment.

What is missing in mobilization is the use these devices and apps for educational and workforce purposes. According to the Nielsen App Study “AppNation” games continue to be the most popular category of apps followed by apps in ranking order for weather, maps, social networking, music, news, entertainment, banking, dining, productivity; whereas educational use was not listed by those surveyed. Note: The majority of apps developed for mobile devices are for games, social networking, and entertainment.

Mobilization offers educators an opportunity to deliver education “on demand and in students’ hands.” It is well documented that people carry their mobile devices; especially their phones, with them at all times. Infographic, 2010, reported that, “From the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed, young people are constantly connected to their electronics, syncing their tablets and smartphones with all the latest updates that came in while they caught their precious shuteye. 83% of young people sleep next to their cell phones; 35% boot-up apps before getting out of bed; 40% use their devices in the bathroom; 70% of college students take notes on their mobile devices; 51% of people do online research as part of their job; 60% of TV viewers use a computer/mobile device at the same time; 50% of Americans prefer communicating to face-to-face conversation.”

Mobile apps provide easier access (touching and talking) to multi-media manipulative digital content that are preliminary showing positive results in student engagement. (Research is being conducted across the globe regarding any significant differences in using mobile devices and apps in improving teaching, learning, and workforce development.)

This blog is intended to launch a conversation (via the comments section below) about the following elements of mobilization on campus or other reflections on mobilization in higher ed:

  • What apps have changed the way you teach? Include the URL.
  • What apps have changed the way students learn? Include the URL.
  • What issues is your institution facing around mobilization and/or what strategies has your institution developed around key issues such as:
    • Strategic planning.
    • Business models/purchasing (due to the rapid changes and constant innovations).
    • Distribution models (faculty, students, locations).
    • Training /professional development.
    • Management (security, IT, networking).
    • Teaching and learning (best practices, curriculum alignment, instructional tools).
    • Student services (marketing, recruitment, ADA, communication, privacy).
    • Assessment/evaluation (effectiveness, student outcome).
    • Other
  • How has mobilization impacted your institution?
  • Does your institution have quality standards around mobile apps?
  • What pilot programs are you aware of?*Tennessee Board of Regents has created a Mobile App Educational and Workforce Resource Center for aligning apps in ninety subject/program areas    from PreK – Workforce Clusters at www.TBReLearning.org (over 50,000+ apps)
Robbie K. Melton, Ph.D.
Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, eLearning

References noted in Blog:

CITA Wireless Study Report: http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AID/10316

The State Of Mobile Apps Created for the AppNation, Conference with Insights from The Nielsen Company’s Mobile Apps Playbook by The Nielsen Company: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/NielsenMobileAppsWhitepaper.pdf

How Do People Use Their Smartphones? Nick Corasaniti, BITS. September 14, 2010, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/report-looks-at-trends-with-mobile-apps/

Categories
Practice

Keeping Institutional Decision-Making Up With New Learning Platforms

Today we welcome Phil Hill, executive vice president at Delta Initiative, as a guest blogger. Phil is a consultant and industry analyst covering the educational technology market primarily for higher education.

We have seen a great deal of change in the higher education Learning Management System (LMS) market over the past year, as has been described in several blog posts. One of the biggest changes to the market that I’ve noticed is that we seem to be moving from an enterprise LMS market, with full-featured monolithic systems, into a learning platform market, with many cloud-based platforms that don’t attempt to have all the features in one system.

As Ritchie Boyd has described, the WCET LMS Common Interest Group (CIG) is recasting itself this year as:
the “Beyond the LMS” Common Interest Group. The idea is to not ignore the LMS, but rather to acknowledge that there is so much more going on in the broader academic technology ecosystems and their impact on our campuses, and that much of this activity often includes or is enveloped by the formal LMS.

In last year’s WCET-sponsored Managing Online Education survey, 47% of respondents indicated they are reviewing their LMS strategy and 27% are planning to change LMS within 2 years. A key question arises, however, about how institutions should adapt their technology decision-making processes based on these market changes. It’s all well and good for the market to change and provide more choices and new approaches, but how should schools decide which system(s) best fit their specific academic and administrative needs? The emergence of new, often free, cloud-based learning platforms may require changes to our decision-making.

Disclaimers

I don’t mean to imply that the new LMS solutions should be the answer, but the landscape has changed such that institutions making LMS or learning platform decisions should be aware of the market changes and make a conscious evaluation of which model fits their needs.

At Delta Initiative, we have advised a number of schools on their decision processes; however, my point in this blog post is to describe trends that are occurring in the market.

The Tyranny of Features

The traditional route of institutional decision-making is based on an extended Request For Proposal (RFP) process that typically takes 4 – 12 months. These RFP processes are subtly built on the same assumptions as the traditional enterprise LMS systems – focusing heavily on evaluation of a complete set of features delivered today, often at the expense of understanding the longer-term road maps of the different learning platform providers.

If an institution follows a traditional RFP process without adaptations for today’s market, then there are several risks inherent in the approach.

  • The traditional RFP approach will strongly bias the institution to adopt an enterprise LMS solution, whether or not this is the best approach to meet institutional needs.
  • Many of the new providers will not formally participate in a formal RFP, particularly those solutions aiming at faculty adoption over institutional adoption. For example, Coursekit made a conscious decision to not go after the institutional sale.
  • Even if an enterprise LMS solution is best for your institution, by not evaluating the market alternatives there is the risk of organizational resistance to the decision.

Laura Gekeler had an interesting post recently about how we tend to overthink LMS evaluations.

It’s not about a Request for Proposal process. It’s not about a comparison of features. It’s not about the best software package out there. [snip]

LMS Evaluations are like any other decision you have to make for your institution. It’s about trusting that the software you choose matches the way your institution does things.

It’s a cultural decision. Wasn’t always. But these days the market is mature enough that all these packages (Canvas, Sakai, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Moodle) can do pretty much the same thing. It’s the way they do them that you care about. It’s the way your institution plans to use and support the software that will make the implementation project a smashing success or an unadopted disaster.

While the characterization of a mature market misses the significantly different business models available in the LMS market today, I think that Laura has a great point about how to think about LMS evaluations. The RFP process does have its place, and for public institutions it is often mandatory. What we have found in the past year, however, is that more institutions are beginning to evaluate strategic options before setting up an RFP process, which allows them to understand “the way your institution plans to use and support the software” and to evaluate vendors by “the way they do” their various LMS capabilities.

Understanding How to Use and Support the Software

What is becoming more important in successful learning management strategy is understanding that LMS is not a technology alone, but rather a technology infrastructure that goes hand-in-hand with support structures to improve educational practices. We have found that the following graphic has helped institutions keep the LMS in perspective.

Understanding the New Landscape of Learning Platforms 

As recently as three years ago the higher ed LMS landscape could be described as having two dimensions – proprietary vs. open source, and traditional software deployment vs. software-as-a-service (SaaS). For all practical purposes, this situation led to three options:

  • Proprietary LMS with self-hosting or managed-hosting options – Blackboard, Desire2Learn (previously including Angel and WebCT)
  • Open Source LMS with self-hosting or managed-hosting options – Moodle or Sakai
  • Proprietary SaaS targeted at online programs – Pearson LearningStudio

In just the past 12 – 24 months, there are some significant new approaches to consider.

  • New SaaS options – targeting either traditional higher ed (Instructure) or online programs (LoudCloud)
  • Faculty adoption – consider OpenClass, NIXTY, CourseSites and Coursekit, which all target (or allow) individual faculty adoption.
  • Free platforms – as above, note that currently all 4 platforms are available fully hosted at no licensing fee as is iTunesU app.
  • iPad platform – this is based on the iTunesU app released in January, which provides a learning platform for the iPad only.
  • Institutional source – MITx is being touted as providing the first fully-automated courses, but less well-known is that their learning platform itself will be available for other institutions to leverage in delivering their own courses outside of the MITx courses and credentialing system.

The situation is that there are LMS solutions available with very different road maps, capabilities and business models.

Evaluate Strategic Fit, not Ranking of Features

Whatever the approach, the most important aspect in my opinion is to base your decision-making process on your institution’s strategic needs. The rapidly-changing LMS market is bringing new technology solutions to consider, but make sure you are solving the right problems. The second most important aspect is to strategically understand the options prior to formally entering an RFP process.

How is your institution changing its decision-making process to account for LMS market changes? Let us know in the comments if you’ve taken a significantly different approach in LMS selection and planning.

Phil Hill

Phil Hill, Executive Vice President at Delta Initiative

Follow Phil on Twitter, view Phil’s LinkedIn Profile, or view Phil’s blog at Delta Initiative.

Categories
Practice

Test Proctoring: An Old Solution to a (Re)Emerging Problem

Today we welcome Peg Wherry, Director of Online Learning at Montana State University, as a guest blogger.  Peg currently leads the WCET Academic Integrity and Student Authentication Subcommittee on Proctoring Practices and Policies and takes this opportunity to share with you their current work.

A headline in the New York Times “Education Life” supplement on January 20 of this year proclaimed, “E-Testing: The Future Is Here.” The article focused on large computer-based testing centers being created on many campuses, citing specifically Penn State, University of Akron, University of Central Florida, and others that are creating high-security centers with dozens of computers running lock-down browser software. Regardless of the size of the testing center, many of them probably are members of the National College Testing Association, which has about 1,700 members representing some 600 colleges and over 40 corporations involved in the testing field.

Many of us involved with distance learning have learned that supervised testing is the strongest protection of academic integrity in online education. The current term for that supervision is “proctor,” but in the nineteenth century, when the practice emerged, “sentinel” and “witness” were also used. A key tenet in the “Report of Committee on Correspondence Study Standards” of the National University Extension Association (1931) was that “Examinations shall be adequately safeguarded.” Thus institutions involved in correspondence study in the first third of the twentieth century, when Rural Free Delivery was the latest advance in communications, are now moving into the online world with well-established practices for using human proctors to safeguard examinations.

Institutions newer to distance learning, on the other hand, may feel they are starting from scratch. To assist them, WCET’s Common Interest Group on Academic Integrity and Student Authentication is developing “Guidelines for Good Practice in Proctoring (Human Proctoring).”  There are also a number of technology-based solutions to the issue of proctoring or exam supervision at a distance. An institution considering various exam safeguards needs to select a method that fits their mission, size, budget, and academic traditions.

One resource for them may be NCTA’s Consortium of College Testing Centers, a listing of colleges that offer professional quality proctoring services to students from other colleges, supporting both online and paper delivered exams.  All participating colleges are required to subscribe to the NCTA National Standards for Testing.  There are currently about 350 Colleges participating in the Consortium.  Access to this list is available to anyone, at no cost, through the NCTA web site:  www.ncta-testing.org.

No solution, whether human proctors or technology, is cheap. The idea of charging students (through paying a proctor or testing center or buying technology-based solutions) may sound a little tacky. It’s easy to imagine a student protesting, “You mean I have to PAY to take a test?!” But what the student would pay for is a system to ensure that the playing field is level and that the credential earned represents honest achievement. It’s the price of fairness—and integrity.

We would like to hear from you about your experiences with proctoring.  We would also like to get your feedback on our draft “Guidelines for Good Practice in Proctoring (Human Proctoring).”  Please provide your comments below.  Thank you.

Peg Wherry

Peg Wherry

Director of Online and Distance Learning

Montana State University

Categories
Practice

Dispatch from Denver – Friday

Hello from the WCET Annual Conference –

More fun and learning from Denver.  The temperatures outside warmed up  and so did the sessions inside.  Here are more thoughts, comments, and things we learned today…

Mike Goldstein, from the Dow Lohnes law firm, informed us that state authorization is just the “tip of the iceberg” in federal regulations regarding distance education.  Regulations for us to watch (and WCET will be watching these) are:

  • Definition of the Credit Hour– The new federal definition reflects the old Carnegie unit of one hour of classroom time plus two hours of outside preparation (or study).  This could have a chill on innovation.
  • Incentive Compensation – The idea of eliminating per student “bounties” for recruiting students (whether they belong in college or not) sounds like a good idea on the face of it.  However, this prohibition was expanded to non-Title IV programs.  It also eliminated the possibility for incentives for activities that were less sinister.
  • Misrepresentation – This regulation penalizes and institution that makes any false, erroneous, or misleading statement.  There is also “substantial misrepresentation” if a student relies on information from a college to his or her detriment. Virtually any communication (marketing, website, advice from faculty, etc.) is subject to the rule.  Are you checking these statements?
  • Last Day of Attendance – For students who drop out of a class, we have always needed to determine the last day of attendance to calculate the amount of the financial aid is entitled to keep or refund.  Attendance is usually a good enough indicator for face-to-face course, but distance students need to demonstrate “academic engagement.”  Just logging into the course management system is not good enough.
  • Gainful Employment – For “recognized occupations” institutions will need to show that there is a market for its graduates.

For the session Videoconferencing Passe or in Vogue?, Luc Comeau said that “videoconferencing is not passé, it is very effective in storytelling.”  Networks in UT, WY, ND, and LA are all seeing resurgence in use of their video networks. One trend is the experimentation of additional technologies, e.g. lecture capture, to explore enhancements to these networks.  More sessions on the future of videoconferencing!

Russ Poulin, Pam Shay and Sharyl Thompson
Russ Poulin, Pam Shay and Sharyl Thompson wearing the answer to any question regarding state authorization – It Depends!

In the session State Authorization – One Year Later, former Florida regulator Jeannie Yockey-Fine said that “this is not rocket science.”  It is up to institutions to know what activities they are doing in a state, know the regulations of a state, and get to know the regulators in the states.  Create a relationship with the regulators. It is not time to sit back and wait.

The Richard Jonsen Award is given each year to an individual who has made a significant contribution to the e-learning community and WCET during his or her career. We are please that Michael Offerman, president emeritus of Capella University, was named the 2011 recipient of WCET’s most prestigious award.

Three WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Awards were honored:

  • Century College and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities for its GPS LifePlanThis service helps students achieve their educational, career, and personal goals by putting them in charge of creating intentional connections with their campus and making their own personal plans for tapping into a host of campus resources.
  • Kansas State University for its University Life Cafe which serves as the first interactive college website promoting the mental wellness and academic success of college students.
  • Regis University’s Passport to Course Development provides creative training and support for faculty, oftentimes adjunct faculty, who are new to the online environment. Using a “passport” metaphor, faculty get their passport stamped as they traverse a colorful interactive world map representing various design and development destinations.

No one got hurt during the 2011 “WCET Smackdown,” unless their sides hurt from laughing.  Presenters were challenged to present compelling ideas in 20 slides that are displayed for 20 seconds each.  It’s fast, it’s furious, and it’s fun.  The team of Myk Garn and Ritchie Boyd were a big hit with their “You Learn, We Earn” tongue-in-check analysis of the current state of higher education.  We captured the presentations on video for your enjoyment.

Cable Green (Creative Commons) talked about creating and using “non-rivalrous” educational materials.  According to the IT Law Wiki, a good is non-rivalrous if the use of the good by one individual does not limit the amount of the good available for consumption by others.  Open educational resources fill the bill.  We also talked about how WCET can help continue support for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program.

Categories
Practice

Dispatch from Denver – Thursday

Hello from the WCET Annual Conference –

We are having fun with our friends here in Denver and wanted to share with you some of the thoughts, comments, and things we have learned thus far…

On Monday we had record high temperatures followed by 8 inches of snow on Wednesday, which prompted the comment:  “Two feet of snow can’t stop the learning force that is WCET.”

Resources from the opening keynote by Jeff Borden, Pearson eCollege, and Mark Sarver, EduKan:

  • Bloom’s technology pyramid: bit.ly/cmGAut Bloom’s technology pyramid
  • “All My Faves”…favorite websites for education:  bit.ly/aD56kb
  • Forgetting stuff?  Here is a retention aid to help you remember stuff: headmagnet.com

Regarding academic honesty…we need to clarify our expectations.  The goal should be to support learning, not to punish the student.

If students are going to cheat, they will find a way.  Whether it is the files of old tests in fraternity basements or Google searches, it is just a different modality.

There are many reasons for cheating, including valuing grades over learning

In a session on analytics, an observation on interpreting data: “Just because a finding is significant, does not mean it is meaningful.”

@theludologist: the #wcet11 app is pretty slick, even has twitter integration, well played > THANKS!

WCET2011 Thursday Reception
Mixing and Mingling at the WCET Reception Thursday evening

Barbara Beno, Western Association of State Colleges, noted that accrediting agencies are concerned about third-party content providers.  How will institutions verify instructional quality and program integrity?  Will we need to accredit these third-party providers in the future? This is an example of only one area in which there is a need for cross-agency accreditation guidelines. ACCJC includes WCET best practices in WASC accreditation guidelines.

Pat O’Brien, New England Association of Schools and Colleges, had a variation on a quote from the old comic strip Pogo: “We have me

t the accreditors and they is us.”

Karen Solomon, Higher Learning Commission, describe a partnership that her agency has with a few institution to pilot learning outcomes work based upon

the Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile.  She noted that institutions that are experienced with online learning have a better handle on what students are learning then those that are primarily face-to-face.

From an audience member in the session High Quality Online Institutions that Scale: “We need to scale our aspirations.”

Why can’t we have a baccalaureate institution that uses the Rio Salado model?  It would have mostly adjunct faculty, serve 35,000 students, and cost the student about $5,000 per year.  That question prompted intense discussion.

Overheard in the hallway: WCET is a million times better than any conference I’ve ever been to!

If you weren’t able to join us in Denver this year, follow the backchannel on Twitter via @wcet_info and our conference hashtag #wcet11 & go ahead and put in your travel request for San Antonio next year!

Categories
Practice

Prepping for a Smackdown

Our guest post this week is by Ritchie Boyd, Academic Technology Specialist at Montana State University, long-time WCETer and one of the best Smackdown’ers from our inaugural Smackdown powered by Pecha Kucha (learn how to pronounce it here) at the 2010 WCET conference in San Diego.  We asked Ritchie to share with those of you PK’ing at #WCET11, and those of you considering jumping into the mix another time, his tips for successful Pecha Kucha preparation and performance.

Imagine you have (or perhaps even want) to give a PowerPoint presentation, but are told you can only have 20 slides, and only take 20 seconds per slide.

If you do the math, that’s a whole talk in 6 minutes and 40 seconds.

Exactly.

No more, no less.

Your hosts put the slide show on autoplay, so you can’t beg for more time, and you’re not even allowed to touch the computer.

That was the idea that Astrid Klein and Mark Dytham, two architects working in Japan back in 2003, came up with to allow their architect and designer colleagues to gather for presentations without boring each other to tears. They called it Pecha Kucha, (Japanese for “chit-chat”), though it is sometimes also known as the 20×20 format. Apparently it works, as what started in Tokyo has now spread to over 230 cities around the world. It might also have something to do with the fact that it is often hosted in bars and nightclubs.

When’s the last time you sat through a presentation so brief that wasn’t provided by a game show host, telemarketer, or ex-con (or some combination thereof)?

Can you do it?

It turns out you can do it, but it takes practice, patience, and the ability to leave dozens of images, great ideas, and pithy remarks on the cutting room floor. And then, more practice.

For a hammy extrovert like me, the painful part is in having to leave those pithy remarks behind, since those gems appear in my brain so infrequently.

I have given plenty of presentations in my life, but I have to confess that these are the only times I have kept them to less than 10 minutes. (Okay, there was that time I was trying to teach a kindergarten class about beach fossils and they all went chasing a crab after the first minute, but that doesn’t count.)

Sure, I have often been asked to keep my remarks to a few minutes, but unless someone is coming after me with a lead pipe or a bucket of Gatorade, I am staying on till I’m done. It’s not that I like to hear myself talk, it’s that the content is just so damn interesting that I need to share it. ALL of it. With whoever will listen. And if they are sitting in a chair and the projector is on, they will listen! Or sleep. If it’s dark enough, that’s okay too – unless they snore.

But I digress.

I was asked by our friends at WCET if I have any advice for someone preparing their first Pecha Kucha style presentation. Or at least, I think I was asked that. Regardless, advice is what you will get – free and worth every penny.

Ritchie Boyd giving his PK 2010

If you saw last year’s smack down, you know that the range of presentations was from the technical to the humorous to the very personal. And all of them, in my estimation, were great – all unique and very much carrying an individual flavor.

So here are 5 things that will help make your presentation great:

1)      Start with a great topic, something that you feel passionate about in some way. Or at least something that you think would be a lot of fun to talk about. Avoid discussions of body parts and politicians. Unless they were combined on Twitter last year.

2)      Gather a large set of images to illustrate your story, but be prepared to throw most of them out. They will help you hone in on your key ideas. A side benefit is that you will get really good at formulating targeted keyword searches on Google.

3)      Focus on a very limited number of points (i.e., one) to make with each slide, or risk being grouped with auctioneers and those guys who read the fine print at the end of pharmaceutical commercials. Need I say more?

4)      Perform a lot (a LOT) of what I call “lather-rinse-repeat” – run the presentation on auto, and do the talk. And I mean DO the talk – say it out loud as if you had an audience. Not enough time for all the great stuff you had in mind? Eliminate the weak points (and this is sometimes akin to being asked to leave a family pet behind when you leave town), run the show on auto again, and prune some more. If you can do the presentation about 10 times in a row and stay within bounds, go to bed, get up and do it again, you’re ready for prime time!

5)      Be fearless. After your first presentation, you become a member of a very small club. You have left the 30, 40, 50 minute talks for the mere mortals. You can now squeeze coal into diamonds.

I was going to call this post “SmackDown Smack Talk”, but really, I have nothing but respect for the folks who have tried it. If you have done it, you know why. If you haven’t, you really should – you’re the one we’re talkin’ smack about!

Ritchie Boyd is the Academic Technology Specialist in the Office of the Provost at Montana State University, Bozeman
Categories
Uncategorized

Learning Analytics Lessons from Moneyball

by Ellen Wagner, WCET Executive Director

The recent release of the movie Moneyball has drawn attention to an idea that has also been top of mind at WCET in recent months: What might happen if we used advanced statistical methods to examine the mounds of data describing a venerable old American institution and came up with new, exciting and decidedly different ways to use results as intelligence to inform decision-making about, well, just about everything?

Photo by theseanster93 on http://www.flickr.com/photos/theseanster93/1152356149/

Moneyball tells the story of how the Oakland Athletics Major League Baseball team applied the principles of sabermetrics  to analyze every aspect of their game, and to then invest their relatively scant salary dollars in very smart, statistically significant ways. The book, Moneyball  was written by Michael Lewis in 2003. The movie Moneyball, starring Brad Pitt, was released in September, 2011.

If you have been watching the rising tide of interest in applying pattern strategy and predictive analytics to forecast such things as, say, points of student loss and momentum in educational settings, you will definitely want to read the book, see the movie, or both. It will help you understand the appeal of learning analytics, and will explain why learning analytics adoption is probably going to occur more quickly than the 4 – 5 years that the Horizon Report  has posited.

Moneyball is not a story of how statistics saved the day for Oakland, any more than collecting more and more data on everything we do in post-secondary online education is going to save the day for educational quality. Everybody in baseball has, does and will collect statistics on just about everything that anybody did, is doing, and might do in baseball.  Simlarly, educators collect all kinds of information about everything that online students do.

What was different was that the A’s started using sabermetrics to analyze each and every aspect of the game – and the business – of baseball. A’s executive leadership then made decisions informed by the specialized analysis of objective, empirical evidence, – specifically, baseball statistics that measure in-game activity.

Bill James, one of sabermetrics’ pioneers and often considered its most prominent advocate, was puzzled that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, important baseball decisions continued to be made on personal biases, folk wisdom, and how a player looked. He was also struck by the aversion to using the data baseball collected about itself:

“Baseball keeps copious records, and people talk about them and argue about them and think about them a great deal. Why doesn’t anybody use them? Why doesn’t anybody say, in the face of this contention or that, “Prove it’?”

When I saw that paragraph in the book I froze: What if we substituted the words “postsecondary education” for “baseball”? In education we would need be content with demonstrating tenability at a particular level of significance…but still.

I was also struck by James’s observation that there are some parts of the game of baseball where the metrics used to evaluate performance were not only inadequate – they actually lied and, in the case of fielding errors, made judgments based on what the scorer thought should have happened!  And that made me reflect a bit on student selection interviews and student teaching observation and internships and other programs where certification of competency comes from being observed by an expert.

It also made me wonder about what we are all going to need to do to ensure the thoughtful adoption of analytics practices, services and software. What ARE  the essential skills, tools, and resources required to actively inform practice decisions when we are likely to be confronted with all kinds of reasons that we can’t or won’t believe in our own numbers??

How will we respond to the challenges and opportunities coming from “big data”? Douglas Bowman protested his experience working under what he called the “Sword of Data” by resigning his post as the lead designer at Google when he found his design decisions being overruled by engineers fueled by customer use case statistics. How will educators respond when their “art of teaching” is confounded by the science of empirical evidence?

Fueling the fires of interest in learning analytics is the appeal of personalization of the learning experience along with the promise that analytics will help identify specific points of student loss and momentum. And while there are legitimate privacy and transparency concerns to be sorted out, these benefits will lead to solutions to those barriers.

Lest you think I am being starry-eyed about predictive analytics, let me point to three recent education examples:

  • Kevin Carey’s great article in the Atlantic recently suggested an online a Match.com-like college admissions service that could transform the college admissions process.
  • At Austin Peay University students have begun using a recommendation system designed by their provost to advise students as they pick their courses—a step that could change GPA’s and career paths.
  • My favorite quote of recent months comes from Dr. Phil Ice, American Public University, during the closing plenary session at the Sloan-C Emerging Technologies for Online Learning conference when he talked about the feasibility of using ecommerce recommendation techniques in learning settings: “Mathematically speaking there is very little difference between a point of sale and a learning outcome.”

Perhaps my favorite example of all: The Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework. This is the project that WCET and six forward-thinking members undertook to see if we could federate de-identified student records and then apply descriptive, inferential and predictive analysis techniques to the single data set, looking for points of student loss and student momentum.

I am pleased to tell you that members of the PAR project team will be sharing preliminary findings during the upcoming WCET Annual Meeting.   We think that we have found some patterns of student engagement that will change the way we think about providing one-size-fits-all online education experiences.  We can’t wait to see you in Denver so we can tell you all about what we’ve learned.

Biggest learning of all – this is about a whole lot more than arcane methodologies for generating statistics. It is ALL about reframing the way that we think about using data. In MoneyBall, they used analysis to find ways to win more games.  With PAR, we’re using analysis to find ways to keep people in school and make their learning experiences more relevant and engaging.  In Moneyball, once the secret of sabermetrics was revealed, some pundits believed that the A’s lost their competitive advantage. The great thing about analytics in education is that, as we raise the bar on quality and accountability, ALL education stakeholders will be winners.

Ellen Wagner, WCET Executive Director
Categories
Uncategorized

WICHE Internet Course Exchange—A Solution for Institutions with Declining Budgets

Guest post by Kelley Brandt, Assistant Director of Distance Education at Boise State University.  Kelley also serves as the WICHE ICE PIC Coordinator organizing communications and activities among the participating institutional representatives. 

Broadening student access to experts through collaboration

Social work students at the University of Alaska Anchorage currently enroll in online courses taught by University of Wyoming faculty without becoming a UW student or leaving Alaska. These UAA students participate in a Master’s in Social Work program at their home institution, which prepares them for meeting the needs of rural residents in their state. Likewise, UW students enroll in social work courses taught online by faculty at UAA. Together, these two state-supported institutions are giving their students an opportunity to learn from faculty with different expertise in the social work field. Plus, both programs can offer more course options without incurring additional costs.

This past spring semester, 30 Boise State University students enrolled in three online workshops on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) taught by University of Alaska Anchorage faculty without becoming a UAA student or leaving Idaho. These students were given access to the Arctic FASD Regional Training Center resources through the workshops, a resource not available in Idaho. One student who enrolled in the course said, “I chose to take this class because I currently work with high school students who have emotional/behavioral disabilities, many of whom have an FASD diagnosis. I also foresee myself pursuing a possible Master’s degree in social work or similar so I knew the knowledge would be beneficial. The fact it is online is a real bonus for me as a working mother of two and a full-time student. The convenience is invaluable! Finally, I was able to meet an upper division elective credit, so bonus again!”

These are examples of the kind of collaboration that occurs among members of WICHE’s Internet Course Exchange (ICE).  Via ICE’s robust administrative tools, institutions share information about selected online courses and securely exchange student data that enables students, through their home institutions, to seamlessly access high quality online courses and programs offered by other four-year and two-year ICE member institutions. Students are advised by their home campus, register for the courses there, and pay for them using their financial aid.  The ICE-exchanged courses are also transcripted by the home institution. WICHE ICE handles all the financial transactions between the institutions. The collaborative model fosters faculty engagement, resource sharing, and innovation.

Institutions find relief with ICE

Finding resources to develop new programs at public institutions has become a challenge in recent years. The University of Alaska Anchorage did not have to beg and borrow to create new course options for its Social Work program. Instead, UAA found a partner. Boise State could have requested funds to hire experts in the field of FASD. Instead, Boise State found a partner. Resource sharing is the cornerstone of WICHE ICE.

At many institutions, it could take years before a new program is set-up. Finding and hiring faculty, developing a curriculum, and building online courses take time and money. Through ICE, two or three partner institutions can divide up the curriculum and course development, dramatically cutting program development time and greatly decreasing the cost to one institution. Then, they can share students to make the program more sustainable over time. On a smaller scale, maybe a faculty member is going on sabbatical and your institution needs to find an expert who can teach a program-required course. Why tell students to wait a year for the class to be offered again when an ICE-member institution with the same program could offer several seats in the same course and help your students stay on track to graduation?

During the past three years, I have worked on the ICE project at Boise State University. As the ICE PIC (Program Information Coordinator), I am constantly chipping away to bring more opportunities to our students. This summer, the University of Wyoming offered an upper division geography course. When I approached the geography department chair to seek approval for offering the course, he said “This is great because we have never talked about developing an online version of this course.” It can take 3-6 months for an instructor to develop a new online course and here we offered a new course in just a week.

The ICE database is very flexible and so it supports several different types of exchanges and partnerships.  In this era of shrinking resources, but also one in which technologies make new ways of operations possible, isn’t it time to think about how we can form new partnerships among institutions to better meet our students’ needs? ICE stands ready to help!

Read The Time is Right for the Internet Course Exchange to find several additional examples of how ICE could benefit your institution.

To learn more about how ICE functions, see the WICHE ICE Operations Manual.

Finally, check out the perspectives of ICE users at UAA.

Kelley Brandt
ICE PIC Coordinator
kbrandt@wiche.edu