We are thrilled that Anita Gabbard and Beth Nettles from the University of Central Florida, share their journey of creating a digital badge program for hybrid work. Their responsiveness to the challenge of preparing staff to successfully work in a variable environment is inspiring and insightful. Thank you Anita, Beth, and team! ~Megan Raymond, WCET
As the COVID pandemic began its third year, the Executive Team of the Division of Digital Learning (DDL) at the University of Central Florida (UCF) began looking for ways to keep their team leads engaged, motivated, and prepared to supervise their evolving work environment. Digital badges for completing professional development and training offered one solution.
The Transition from Remote to Hybrid Work
The first year of the pandemic was a crazy time involving immediate shutdowns, working remote, and a transition to prepare faculty to teach remotely. At the beginning of the second year, we could collectively slow down and assess our situation. We had questions about how to work effectively in a remote environment, and we required guidance. To find answers, we sought out podcasts, articles, and research documents to help us figure out how to navigate this new environment. While many employers had embraced remote work for years, UCF’s Division of Digital Learning (DDL) had not. We had always been a ‘be visible and available for our clients’ type of organization, and this shift was new for many of us.
During the pandemic, DDL formed a Hybrid Work Task Force as a proactive approach to the return to the campus request from the President. The recommendation was to conduct a Hybrid Work Pilot program allowing employees to work up to three days off site and two days onsite. Not unexpectedly, once underway, the hybrid work schedule generated questions about safety, supervision, accountability, and how to maintain the DDL culture.
During this transition, the responsibility for keeping their teams engaged, productive, and connected to each other became a crucial role for team leads. While they had done this in face-to-face and now virtual environments, this was the first-time team leads were supervising in a hybrid work environment. For teams to be successful, we needed to provide them with specific resources and training on the topic.
One Solution: A Remote Work Learning Badge
UCF invested in the LinkedIn Learning (LiL) platform years ago. To their credit, LiL was generating content on many of the topics we wanted our team leads to learn. And we needed a way to encourage and recognize team leads for completing the courses. Time was a scarce commodity with a lot of competing priorities.
Much has been written about the benefits of digital badges and micro-credentials in academics. Besides being able to share your accomplishments on social media, digital badges offer other benefits including skill documentation, recognition for acquiring a new skill, and motivation for continuous learning. Digital badges, however, appear to be most successful when used to recognize soft skills such as communication, decision-making, time management, leadership, and problem solving.
DDL had cultivated an interest in academic digital badges for years. In the past, badges were issued to students for completing Information Literacy modules, and the Continuing Education program issued badges for completing certification programs. Issuing digital badges to employees for professional development was a new direction. The Remote Work Leadership badge was intended to encourage supervisors to watch a series of videos on the topic of managing remote teams. The Hybrid Work Implementation team selected a series of courses from LiL from which the supervisors could choose, including the following course options:
Building Relationships While Working from Home.
Leading at a Distance.
Leading Virtually.
Leading Virtual Meetings.
Managing Compassionately.
Managing Remote Teams.
Managing Skills for Remote Leaders.
Planning for your Hybrid Organization.
To earn the badge, Team Leads needed to watch and successfully complete four of the eight courses.
We promoted the new program and received support from our Vice Provost. In fact, he was the first to earn the Remote Work Leadership badge, and his posting on social media generated even more interest.
We strived to make the process as simple as possible. When the team lead completed four courses, they would send an email to the admin team with their evidence attached. This was then forwarded to the manager who oversees our digital badging platform who would then issue the badge.
Another Solution: The Remote Work Foundations Badge
Right away we realized that some of the courses covered material that would be valuable for all employees, not just supervisors. So, we developed a second series, moved a couple of the courses from the Leadership list to a Foundations list, and added richer content to the supervisor’s side. We then created a new badge entitled Remote Work Foundations. Employees needed to successfully complete four of the nine selected LiL courses to receive the badge. The list of courses options include:
Remote Work Foundations.
Building Relationships while Working from Home.
Insights on Working from Home’s Largest-ever Experiment.
Stepping Up your Webcam Video Presence.
Working from Home: Strategies for Success.
Tips for Working Remotely.
Time Management: Working from Home.
Thriving @Work: Leveraging the Connection between Well-being and Productivity.
Learn How to Avoid Burnout: Work/Life Balance.
Lessons Learned and What Comes Next
We are just in the beginning stages of the series but have already experienced an unexpected outcome. Our Vice Provost posted his badge on LinkedIn and shared the program at the Provost Council meeting. We were approached by other departments who wanted to earn the badge. Since then, we have extended the program criteria beyond DDL and have seen success. Those who complete the courses, are posting their badges on LinkedIn, which further increased excitement for the program.
In anticipation of increased participation, we have created a process for collecting the names of badge earners in a spreadsheet for issuing badges in bulk rather than one at a time. In the future, we plan to survey the staff to determine continued interest and other badging opportunities. We are now considering several exciting options, one of which is to tier the badges, offering badges for each completed course leading up to the Leadership or Foundation badge. This would allow for a more robust and detailed explanation of skills acquired from the badges.
The University of Arkansas Cossatot is a small community college in the southwest corner of Arkansas with approximately 1,400 students. Among two-year colleges in Arkansas, we lead in OER usage, but it didn’t happen overnight. It took collaboration between college administration, faculty, and staff to increase OER usage from 0 percent to 60 percent in five years.
With unwavering determination and dedication, UA Cossatot started the first internal textbook rental and OER program in Arkansas. For community colleges transitioning to OER, it doesn’t matter how big or small your college is–you can step up to eliminate some of the financial barriers that students face. We’ve learned a lot about open resources and Creative Commons, and we are eager to share our experience of how we created one of the most successful OER initiatives in Arkansas and went from 0 to 60 in five years.
2015: Starting at Zero (But With a Vision)
In early 2015, Chancellor Steve Cole asked me whether I could develop an internal textbook rental program. As the college’s director of educational resources and with administration’s full support, I spent the summer procuring textbooks, and we began renting textbooks for a fee of $30 per book each semester.
Textbooks weren’t our primary goal; introducing OER was our primary goal. We began offering faculty a $500 stipend to design their courses using OER. During the first year of our new program, instructors selected OER for 38 courses and stipends totaled $19,000. After only one year, UA Cossatot was 35% OER and students saved $360,053.54. In addition to becoming the first college in Arkansas to use an internal textbook rental program, we also led the state in OER usage among two-year colleges.
Initially, we planned to have faculty distribute textbook rentals, but to avoid conflict, I asked my staff at the Educational Resource Center (ERC) whether they could handle the program and they all agreed that since we were already handling the college’s library and tutoring program, we could easily add a third department. It worked really well because the ERC was such an active student area.
2018: Applying What We Learned from Open Organizations
In 2018, we became the first in Arkansas to join the Open Education Network (OEN). At that time, the OEN was still known as the Open Textbook Network (OTN). Now that we were a part of the OTN and had access to so many training opportunities, it was time to learn more about the Creative Commons, which is an open alternative to traditional copyright licensing.
I took an online course and completed the CC Certification Course in 2019, and we became the first institution in the state to have an OER specialist certified for specialization in open licensing through Creative Commons. It helped us to be able to provide better guidance for faculty. Just as I finished the Creative Commons training, I was selected to serve on the OEN Steering Committee for a two-year term. It was a great experience and we learned so much more about OER.
2019: Leveraging Grant Funds to Help Us Reach the Next Step
While we continued to lead Arkansas in OER usage, it was almost impossible to find funding since our faculty weren’t writing open textbooks but adopting existing OER. In 2019, we submitted a Title III SIP grant application. One of our goals is to improve retention and graduation rates by improving our Educational Resource Center, which is now a merger of four departments. We included OER in the grant narrative because it allows us to offer a more substantial incentive to encourage faculty to adopt OER. We also knew that my training needed to continue, as well as our commitment to encourage others to join the OER movement. On October 1st, 2020, we were notified that we were awarded a $2.2 million dollar Title III grant.
2021: Zooming Past 60!
An OER instructor with her class at the Ed. Resource Center.
Today, 65% of our courses use OER only, and we maintain the highest OER usage among two-year colleges in Arkansas. Since our program launched in 2015, we’ve accomplished so much in the OER world, but our biggest achievement is that UA Cossatot students have saved nearly $2.5 million through our innovative textbook rental and OER program.
If a small community college in the southwest corner of Arkansas can accomplish what we have with OER, then you can too. Building this program from the ground up has been one of the most rewarding things I’ve done during my academic career. It is hard work, it is hectic, and it is time consuming, but seeing students’ faces when we tell them, “You don’t have to buy a book” makes it all worthwhile.
The self-proclaimed “policy nerds” at WCET and WCET|SAN began looking forward to 2022, and we started to marvel at all the policy issues for digital learning in higher education that will be in play this year. Some significant changes for online and distance learning with significant implications for student consumer protection are on the horizon. With that insight, we wish to give you a preview of “coming attractions” of actions that will (or may?) occur in the coming months.
The first post in this series focused on the main issues with the current U.S. Department of Education’s Negotiated Rulemaking process that started last week. This second post highlights other issues (outside of rulemaking) at both the state and federal level that will be considered or pursued in 2022. While there are many other issues, we limited ourselves to the issues that will have an impact on the digital learning community and the protection of our students as consumers.
This set of coming attractions are wide-ranging. So, find your Junior Mints and enjoy this second feature in our twin bill of Frontiers posts on what we need to watch in 2022.
Regular and Substantive Interaction By Kathryn Kerensky
For purposes of eligibility for federal financial aid, Congress created a distinction between “distance education” and “correspondence education.” A critical component of that distinction is “regular and substantive interaction” (RSI), which is required for a course to be classified as distance education rather than correspondence education. For federal financial aid eligibility, this is important because institutions offering more than 50 percent of their total course offerings via correspondence or enrolling more than 50 percent of their students in correspondence courses are not eligible to participate in Title IV financial aid programs.
On July 1, 2021, the Department of Education’s definition of “regular and substantive interaction” went into effect. Until then, those terms were not well-defined by regulation, and guidance regarding the meaning of those terms was incomplete. For more on the history of the interpretation of RSI, you can review the analysis conducted by Van Davis and Russ Poulin back in 2016.
In talking to members, we also encountered confusion about some provisions among institutional personnel and we have not heard of any members who have had the new wording applied to them in a Federal financial aid review. To seek clarification, WCET and SAN submitted a letter to the Department last summer with common questions and concerns.
On “regular and substantive interaction,” WCET submitted questions to the Department seeking clarifications on some provisions and urged the Department to issue guidance.
When it comes to the future of these requirements, WCET and SAN do not expect the Department to change or eliminate these definitions. Instead, we may see the Department issue guidance on the definitions, such as in the form of “Dear Colleague” letters. In the preamble to the final regulations and in webcasts, department staff have provided insights into how the department interprets certain elements of the definitions, such as direct instruction. So, now that the regulations have been effective for several months, we anticipate that and urge the Department to release official guidance to interpret and clarify some of the regulatory expectations of institutions.
We will keep you updated on further announcements from the Department and will perform additional reviews and analysis as necessary. We recommend that you review the current interpretations, evaluate your institution’s policies and procedures that implement these requirements, and check with your institutional or programmatic accreditors if you have questions on accreditors’ guidance relating to RSI.
In February of 2021, Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate’s Education Committee, requested that the Government Accounting Office conduct a review of OPM practices. It is unclear when that report will be released, but it seems reasonable that the Department may wish to have that information so that it can take action in 2022.
But, what can the Department do? Their main options are:
Congressional action. Certainly, there are Senators very interested in pushing legislation on this issue. However, without 60 votes in the Senate, it is unlikely to pass.
Negotiated rulemaking. The Department has been extremely busy with the rulemaking process. A new round of rulemaking could be called, but there is some speculation that the Department’s staff is overtaxed with following through on the current rulemaking and the aftermath of the rulemakings that were conducted last year.
Issuing guidance. Bob Shireman, formerly with the Department of Education and now with the Century Foundation, provides insights on one action that could be taken in his 2019 opinion piece. He cites a 2010 memorandum on “bundled services” and remuneration for recruiting that was issued by the Department. The Department could simply issue an updated opinion. Shireman suggests, “enforcing the statutory ban on incentive compensation to contractors.” That could have a great impact on existing and future OPM contracts.
It will be interesting to see when the GAO report is released and what actions follow from those findings.
Veterans’ Housing Allowance By Cheryl Dowd
Veterans studying under the GI Bill are eligible for a Monthly Housing Allowance (MHA) while pursuing their studies. The pandemic introduced complications for veterans who transitioned to remote learning and there are new requirements for all veterans to verify their on-going enrollment in a college or university.
Reductions for Veterans Studying Solely at a Distance The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 directs that housing benefits for veterans be reduced if the student participates in their courses solely by distance education. This became a problem when, due to the pandemic, institutions were forced to transition to distance technologies for remote courses and all students would receive the reduced housing allowance for distance students. In response, Emergency Federal legislation was passed in March 2020 to authorize the Veterans Administration (VA) to continue full housing benefits for programs that have been converted to distance education (e.g., remote learning) due to an emergency or health-related situation. This emergency flexibility was extended in recent Federal legislation to continue the benefit through June 1, 2022.
As a result, veteran students whose courses are shifted to remote education due to the pandemic can continue to receive full housing benefits despite participating in courses solely through distance education. The legislation, however, does not apply to the student who simply makes the choice to enroll in courses solely by distance education.
Veterans who take all their courses at a distance understand that the difference in housing allowance rates can be significant. If veterans were forced to take the reduced Monthly Housing Allowance, the GI Bill Comparison Tool guides the veteran as to how much they are eligible for their location. For fully-distant students, the amount is fixed by law at $871 per month. As WCET reported recently, this amount is roughly one-third of the MHA that a student living in a higher cost-of-living area would receive. Meanwhile, a student taking at least one face-to-face course in Northern Virginia would receive $2,544 per month in housing allowance.
Veterans participating in courses solely by remote education (which, for this purpose, is officially “distance education”) due to the pandemic will continue to receive full MHA until June 1, 2022. After that time, the MHA benefit amount will return to the distinction made for reduced MHA for all veterans who participate in courses solely by distance education unless there is further legislation.
It would be great if Congress would extend this waiver for a longer term. The “brinksmanship” of extending the deadline just before an academic term leads to unnecessary uncertainty for our former soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
New Certification Requirements for Veterans Related to continued receipt of MHA by students, institutions must be aware of certification requirements placed on the student to electronically verify their continued enrollment in school with the VA as required by Isakson and Roe; Section 1010. Failure to certify for two consecutive months will cause the VA to withhold MHA payments until the student completes certification. This new requirement was implemented starting with non-college degree programs last August 2021 and now includes all college degree programs as of December 2021. For more information, you can review School Certifying Official (SCO) Training on the Veterans Administration website.
Taxes and Many Other Regulations for Remote Employees in Other States by Rachael Stachowiak
2020 and 2021 pushed institutional leaders nationwide to quickly pivot to the “new normal” of remote work. In this same period, employees may have chosen to relocate out-of-state for personal or financial reasons. Regardless, employers should be aware that managing a multi-state workforce follows a similar principle to State Authorization: institutions who engage in activities outside of their primary state must comply with rules and regulations pursuant to the conditions wherever they may be operating. This includes where they have employees.
Employers should examine the local laws (state, country, and city) to review provisions affecting and protecting the remote worker. There are a range of issues including, but not limited to, workers compensation insurance, mandated postings, state specific paid family and sick leave, unemployment insurance, wage and hour laws, etc. Enter the challenge of monitoring the wandering worker.
Moving into 2022, we can anticipate that State legislatures may refocus on employment laws addressing issues adjacent and related to the ongoing pandemic:
Permanent reform of the temporary adjustments to unemployment insurance, with the intended goal of addressing efficacy and equitable access for independent contractors, temporary, part-time employees, and others,
State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) – Processes for Policy Revisions By Cheryl Dowd
Institutions that obtain state institutional approval for distance education through participation in reciprocity through the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) are subject to a uniform set of responsibilities as provided in the SARA Policy Manual. The National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) is a private nonprofit organization developed to partner with the four regional compacts (MHEC, NEBHE, SREB, WICHE) to administer SARA, the interstate agreement. SARA policy is reviewed and revised, as needed, by the NC-SARA Board of Directors, comprised of experts in higher education, state leadership, advocacy, and distance education.
During the most recent NC-SARA Board meeting that took place in October, the following actions were taken:
The Unified State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (UA) was unanimously reaffirmed as the guiding principles of SARA and the framework for SARA’s operational and administrative structure. The UA includes the Governing Principles of SARA and describes the roles and responsibilities of States, Regional Compacts, Participating Institutions, and the National Council for SARA.
Policy Modifications to the SARA Manual were tabled pending further input and review: the proposed “21st Century Distance Education Guidelines,” Branch Campuses, and Sections 8.2 and 8.3 regarding processes for modifying the SARA Policy Manual.
SARA Policy Next Steps
A new policy revision process will be designed by the NC-SARA Board while working in partnership with the Regional Compacts, the Regional Steering Committees of the Regional Compacts, and NC-SARA staff.
No proposed policy changes will move forward until the NC-SARA Board has developed and adopted the new policy review and revision process.
The NC-SARA office will share more information, including opportunities for input into the new policy process as well as current and future policy proposals, as it becomes available.
Data Privacy By Kathryn Kerensky
Data privacy and data protection laws and regulations vary by state and by sector in the United States, with laws specific to health information (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)), financial (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)), children’s information (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA)), student education records (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)), and consumer information, among others.
Since the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) went into effect in 2018, there has been a trend toward more jurisdictions, states, and countries passing their own laws on consumer data protection, security, and privacy. Laws pertaining to consumer privacy continue to develop, and WCET and SAN expect to see more at the state and federal level in the coming year and the years to come.
Data Policy at the Federal Level… Pertaining to consumer privacy at the federal level, there have been several comprehensive privacy, biometric data, and artificial intelligence legislative attempts. Additionally, on September 29, 2021, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing that centered on strengthening consumer privacy rights, including the creation of a comprehensive federal privacy law.
On December 10, 2021, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with the Office of Management and Budget that states the commission’s intent to “initiate a rulemaking to curb lax security practices, limit privacy abuses, and ensure that algorithmic decision-making does not result in unlawful discrimination.” Based on the date of the filing, we may be hearing more about how the Commission intends to proceed in February 2022. The FTC has the authority to regulate the data privacy and protection practices of the commercial entities within its jurisdiction.
Data Policy at the State Level… To date, three states have passed what are considered comprehensive consumer data privacy laws, although many more states have existing data breach notification requirements and laws on the use of biometric data in place that may apply. California is considered the first state to pass a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and in 2021, was followed by laws in Virginia (effective January 1, 2023) and Colorado (effective July 1, 2023). There are currently active bills in twelve other states. Furthermore, at least nineteen additional states have introduced or considered legislation.
The Implications for Institutions… As with any area of state or national law, the obligations imposed by each of these laws will vary and may have their own nuances to address, and these laws may or may not apply to specific institutions. Institutions with students, faculty, and/or staff in multiple states will increasingly be challenged to remain in compliance. It is important to work with counsel to determine applicability of these legislative updates to your institution and to develop solutions and programs to meet these obligations. Monitoring the status of these proposed laws is an important key to a compliance plan for courses or programs offered in multiple locations.
Borrower Defense to Repayment By Kathryn Kerensky
Starting in October 2021 and running through December 2021, the U.S. Department of Education held three sessions of negotiated rulemaking, with the Affordability and Student Loans Committee, during which they discussed topics related to borrower issues, including borrower defense to repayment (see 34 CFR 685.206(c) and (e) and 34 CFR 685.222). Defenses to repayment allow borrowers to seek loan forgiveness if a college or university engaged in certain categories of acts or omissions that lead to a borrower defense to repayment claim.
Borrower defenses to repayment regulations have been subject to several changes over the years, with amendments both in 2016 and 2019. The current Administration identified borrower defense to repayment as an issue for negotiated rulemaking to modify the standards and processes from the 2019 regulations. Department personnel argue that those regulations “effectively barred relief for many borrowers” who would have received relief under prior regulations.
The objective proposed by the Department during negotiated rulemaking was to streamline the regulatory requirements into a single federal standard, and the USED proposed multiple solutions to the issues with the BDR regulations that it identified. A few highlights:
Retroactivity – the new standards would apply to all claims regardless of when the loan was first disbursed,
Evidentiary standard – borrowers would not be required to prove they relied upon the institutional wrongdoing if a reasonable person could have been expected to rely upon that wrongdoing,
Aggressive recruitment would be added as a category that could lead to a successful borrower defense claim,
Misrepresentation – the USED would adopt the definition of misrepresentation, not substantial misrepresentation, as a basis for a BDR claim,
Limitations on borrower claims – borrower could submit a defense to repayment claim so long as they still have an outstanding direct loan associated with their claim.
According to an analysis from National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), the Department shared three issues papers relating to borrower defense to repayment, which did not reach consensus. The Department will likely publish proposed language for rulemaking some time this year. If final regulations are published prior to November 1, 2022, then the rules would go into effect on July 1, 2023.
The self-proclaimed “policy nerds” at WCET and WCET/SAN began looking forward to 2022, and we started to marvel at all the policy issues for digital learning in higher education that will be in play this year. Some significant changes for online and distance learning with significant implications for student consumer protection are on the horizon.
Big Professional Licensure Proposal
Negotiated Rulemaking provided a “plot twist.” For programs leading to professional licensure, ED proposes:
– Drop student notifications.
– Require programs to ensure compliance to state licensure rules.
With that insight, we wish to give you a preview of “coming attractions” of actions that will (or may?) occur in the coming months. There have already been some unexpected plot twists, especially regarding proposed changes to student professional licensure notifications and requirements.
Today’s post focuses on the main issues with the current U.S. Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking process that started last week. The next post will focus on other issues (outside of rulemaking) at both the state and federal level that will be considered or pursued in 2022.
So, pop some popcorn and join us as the first feature in our twin bill begins with proposed changes to federal rules…
2022 Negotiated Rulemaking
The second Biden administration U.S. Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking began January 18 and will continue through March 2022. The Department announced that the Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee will address seven topics, many of them around protecting students as consumers:
Financial responsibility for participating institutions of higher education under 34 CFR 668.15 and 34 CFR part 668, subpart L, such as events that indicate heightened financial risk;
To begin the committee discussions, the Department shared draft proposals, as hyperlinked above, for proposed introductory regulatory language. These draft proposals are merely a starting point for committee conversations. The committee is not obligated to follow the Department’s proposals. The Federal Negotiated Rulemaking webpage contains updated information on the negotiators, the documents they consider, the schedule for meetings, and recordings of those meetings.
“Certification Procedures:” Proposed Change to Professional Licensure Requirements
To be eligible to participate in Department of Education financial aid programs, institutions are expected to follow the provisions of the Program Participation Agreement (PPA). The regulations institutions must follow, including the certification process, can be found in 668.13 and in 668.14.
Critics have expressed the opinion that some PPA provisions are insufficient to adequately protect students and taxpayers. One of the terms under the microscope is the requirement that arose out of the 2019 rulemaking process (34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) and 34 CFR 668.43(c)) that institutions notify students regarding professional licensure programs offered in each state. The Department’s proposal is to eliminate the student notification about whether an institution does, does not, or has not determined if its program meets the educational requirements for a student to obtain licensure in a state—but, the trade-off would be a new requirement in the PPA.
The Bar Would Be Raised for Professional Licensure Programs: Must Ensure Compliance
The Department is proposing that student professional licensure notification would be removed and that the following proposed (and more stringent) requirement be added to the PPA (see page 8 of the proposed language):
(32) In each State in which the institution is located or in which the institution is otherwise required to obtain State approval under 34 CFR 600.9, the institution must—
(i) Ensure that each program is programmatically accredited, if such accreditation is required by a Federal governmental entity or by a governmental entity in the State; and
(ii) Ensure that each program satisfies the applicable educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification requirements in the State so that a student who completes the program and seeks employment in that State qualifies to take any licensure or certification exam that is needed for the student to practice or find employment in an occupation that the program prepares students to enter.
As we read it, the institution would be required to “ensure” that it meets any state educational professional licensure requirements to be eligible to offer aid to a student in that program in that state. We were surprised at this proposal.
The proposal is a major change, and we find it to be problematic. On January 21, Cheryl Dowd provided a public comment to the Committee about the need for clarity on how institutions would demonstrate that they “ensure” compliance and suggested that a carve-out is needed for students who wish to enroll, even if the program does not meet the requirements where the student is currently located. Additionally, she suggested that the Committee interact with state licensing boards on these requirements since they will be greatly affected and can help shape the language.
Please be advised that this proposal is the starting place for a discussion of the Committee, which also provides an avenue for public comment during these Committee proceedings. Near the end of this post, we include information about how you can provide comments if you have opinions you’d like to share. We will be following this issue closely. Watch for more updates on it.
Gainful Employment
The “gainful employment” rule is meant to ensure that students completing programs at for-profit institutions and non-degree programs at public and private institutions are gainfully employed in a “recognized occupation” per the Higher Education Act.
Why Now for Gainful Employment?
During his presidential run, President Biden’s higher education platform included language about greater accountability for for-profit postsecondary institutions, and many see gainful employment as a critical component of that greater accountability and oversight.
Gainful Employment History The debate over gainful employment regulations dates back to 2009 when the Obama administration Department of Education entered into negotiated rulemaking to establish the metrics by which one could determine whether completion of certain postsecondary programs led to gainful employment in a recognized occupation and Title IV eligibility conditions for those programs. Since that committee did not reach consensus, the Department created rules with income to debt ratios for determining gainful employment and debt repayment metrics. The resulting rules issued in 2010 and 2011 were largely struck down in a federal court challenge. The Department then reissued the rules in 2014 and included a similar debt to earnings ratio. In 2019, the Trump Department of Education rescinded the 2014 rule.
President Biden’s commitment to consumer protection for students brings us to the present round of negotiated rulemaking. Unlike other areas of proposed regulations, the Department has not provided negotiators with proposed regulatory language. This means negotiators will have to draft regulations from scratch, making it much less likely they will be able to reach consensus on such a complicated and contentious regulation. The Department has, however, provided negotiators with a list of discussion questions to consider that includes:
metrics for determining gainful employment, including the use of repayment rates and debt-to-earnings ratios,
the benefits of using multiple metrics versus a single metric, and
recommendations for how the Department should balance the burden of institutional reporting requirements with collecting the necessary data for the regulations.
For more information on the history of gainful employment regulations and the current negotiated rulemaking, you can review the great analysis by NASFAA (the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators) as well as Inside Higher Education’s recent reporting on gainful employment.
The 90/10 Rule (for Capping For-profit Institution Aid Eligibility)
Federal Law, through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, was enacted on March 2021. Section 2013 expands the types of Federal aid in addition to Title IV aid that is to be included in the total revenue that for-profit institutions must include in the revenue calculation for federal student-aid program eligibility. The Federal aid is to be no more than 90% of the institution’s revenue.
Many object to certain types of aid provided by federal agencies (e.g,. Tuition Assistance for active-duty military, GI Bill education benefits, and other Federal aid to military-affiliated students) not being counted in that calculation. A proposed change to regulations would address implementation of the Federal law to determine a listing of Federal agencies that provide educational assistance as well as address the type of non-federal revenue that can be claimed within the 10% of revenue.
Changes in ownership and For-Profit Institution Conversions
In the wake of an increase in changes in ownership and conversion from for-profit to nonprofit or public status, some are concerned that these changes create an added risk to students in that they will not receive the educational experience for which they were engaged. The committee will reevaluate policy and procedures to possibly develop a clearer and more streamlined process for purposes of changes of ownership and other arrangements.
Negotiated Rulemaking Next Steps
Note that the complete regulatory process ending in an effective regulation must follow a designated timeline. The earliest date that the regulations from this Committee may become effective is July 1, 2023. During the final days of the Committee meetings this March, there will be a vote by the committee members on the regulatory language that was developed. If the Committee reaches complete agreement on the regulatory package (called consensus), the regulations may move forward to be released by the Department as proposed regulations subject to a period of public comment.
After the Department reviews the public comments, final regulations may be released. If the final regulations are released by November 1, 2022, the regulations will become effective July 1, 2023. If the final regulations are released after November 1, 2022, the regulations will not become effective until July 1, 2024.
If the Committee does not reach consensus on the regulatory package, the Department may choose to write the rules. The work of the Committee may be used by the Department to write the regulations and will follow the same timeline outlined above.
Public Commenting
The rulemaking committee agenda includes a public comment period from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) each day. You must register to synchronously stream the proceedings. You may wish to bookmark Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Webpage for all notices, recordings, initial proposal language, and transcripts. To request time to comment, please send the name of the speaker, as well as the name of the organization, if applicable, to negreghearing@ed.gov no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern time on the day of the meeting. There may also be opportunities for you to write comments to the Committee, and we will inform you about how you can participate.
In Conclusion…
We hope that you enjoyed those “coming attractions,” and that the blog entices you to be prepared to watch the story play out. There are many rules in play and much more work to be done in the coming months.
We’ll keep WCET and WCET/SAN members informed as this story plays out, especially for the professional licensure and gainful employment rules. At times, we may also be suggesting that you provide your own comments.
Watch for our next post on other state and federal rules that will be in play for digital, distance, and online learning in 2022.
Today’s blog outlines five steps educators can implement to ensure that we are approaching our work from a learner first perspective. Thank you to WCET Member O’Donnell Learn and Carrie O’Donnell for this thoughtful blog that will help reach and understand the heart of the learner.
~Megan Raymond, WCET
Every person working in the field of education strives to be learner-centric and currently, there’s a mission growing to first acknowledge and then include every type of learner who steps into a classroom. For us, at O’Donnell Learn, learner-centric means much more than addressing learning styles; learner inclusivity is how we reach out to the hearts of every learner.
The truth is, it’s too easy to lose students. It’s too easy for them to drop out. In fact, retention rates are the lowest they’ve been…ever. Students fail out of school all of the time, and, if they aren’t dropping out or failing, quite often they are feeling lost. It’s hard for students to find courses that fit their needs because their needs aren’t often included in course creation. Students are not prioritized in the development of curriculum.
At O’Donnell Learn, we approach our work with a learner first perspective. We know, through decades of conducting studies, collecting data, polling, and doing research that institutions achieve when students thrive. Historically, however, learner first has not been the model or mindset schools have adopted, and why, you ask? Well, it is difficult to get to know an individual student’s needs, particularly in virtual environments. For the better part of the last century, institutions have focused on content and instruction; as a result, faculty have taken a learning first approach.
1. Model practices for empathy and inclusivity. If students are dealing with issues outside of the classroom, from mental to physical health challenges, to family and friends in crises, institutions must indoctrinate policies to ensure that students’ challenges are heard and met with compassion.
2. Put out the welcome mat. There’s one simple step to getting off on the right foot: making students feel at ease. Before a course begins, instructors can create a statement in the syllabus or a video on their course’s homepage to pique students’ excitement. This could mean surveying students to better understand their learning preferences or inviting students to be a presence in the class. It also likely means instructors displaying their own vulnerability, wearing their hearts on their sleeves, so to speak. It may involve telling students why they love what they teach, why it’s important to enjoy what you do, and facilitating conversations to foster passion about the subject matter.
3. Ensure every voice is heard. Design activities that encourage students to participate. Not every student will be first to raise their hand, however an instructor can gently tease out the voices of students who may not ordinarily expose themselves. When creating activities, assign every student a role. In breakout rooms, make sure there are opportunities for all students to speak. In courses where students tend to be guarded, like STEM, facilitate one-on-one discussions. If an instructor knows their students are struggling, engage them.
4. Enable students with the power to reach their highest goals. When a student has agency, they are far more likely to grow and achieve in the classroom. Ask students to tell you how you can better teach them. Let students bring the content they want to see to their course. Students understand technology better than instructors. Don’t be afraid to use their expertise. By giving students the reins, you are creating symbiosis between all members of the classroom. If you listen, students will tell you how they want to learn.
5. Offer timely feedback – early and often. Feedback is not only an assessment of one’s grade. Feedback is also about participation and presence. It’s about whether a student is finding joy in their course. It’s about how and why students are struggling and what they are enjoying. Tuning into students’ feelings is a primary component of inclusivity.
For instructors to focus on the hearts of learners, institutions need to promote a mindset shift across the campus. O’Donnell Learn collaborates with institutions and their faculty to accelerate this process because when they do, everyone wins. Educators can meet students’ eye to eye, step off the academic ladder, and portray themselves as human, just like their learners. Great educators tap into the moral compass of their course, and impactful institutions prioritize the ones who matter most: students.
Thank you to WCET Steering Committee member Adam Cota and his colleagues, Sarah DeMark and Kacey Thorne, for the next entry in our series on student Return on Investment (ROI) in higher education and the role of digital learning in the equation. The blog explores the demand from students and employers for stackable credentials and shorter-term credential options to meet shifting demands and the ROI to learners when attained alongside a traditional degree.
~Russ Poulin, WCET
Now more than ever, learner-workers need faster, more flexible options in their education pathways to stay competitive in the world of work. The forces of the current COVID pandemic and recurring economic instability have ignited renewed focus on the importance of education options with direct alignment to marketable skills and that provide an immediate value in the workforce.
Both Employers and Learners are Placing Less Value on Full Degrees
In what many pundits are calling the “Great Resignation” there has been a shift in the hiring market. Due to labor shortages that have only been exacerbated with the pandemic, employers are increasingly reconsidering the necessity of a degree for some of their roles and are instead ensuring candidates have the relevant skills. Recently, LinkedIn has seen a 21% increase in job postings advertising skills instead of degrees. This fast-moving current can cause many to be confused as to what the best path is for them.
A traditional degree path is familiar to most students, but many have the fear that if they start and are interrupted, they lose their momentum and gain no reward for their progress to date.
Shorter-term Credential Options Are Gaining in Preference
The pandemic has merely illuminated the importance of faster, more targeted avenues for developing and refreshing skills. Learner-workers need more efficient ways to skill and reskill to meet the shifting demands of an ever-changing labor market. Credentials can provide a shorter-term solution to validating skills for immediate value. In fact, a survey conducted by Strada Education Network found that 60% of Americans now prefer shorter-term credential options to full degree programs.
Stackable, non-degree credentials offer the benefit of quicker time to value and flexibility that learner-workers need today, especially if those same stackable credentials build into a larger degree pathway. This is most critical for those learners who have traditionally been left behind due to socio-economic reasons.
Critics of the traditional higher education system have argued that it is not responsive enough to the immediate realities and goals of students, nor of the needs of the changing workforce. The most recent talent shortage survey conducted by Manpower Group reports that 69% of employers globally report difficulty filling positions as global talent shortages are higher than they have been in the last 15 years. Employers need to hire skilled workers and they need better options for upskilling, reskilling, and cross-skilling their current talent. Learner-workers need access to educational programming options that match their goals and allow for the ability to skill and reskill to stay ahead of the obsolescence curve.
Stackable Credentials Meet Short- and Long-Term ROI Needs
Stackable credentials provide a solution to this challenge by creating a pathway for students to build employer-valued skills as they work towards a goal without losing progress or purpose. The U.S. Department of Labor has previously defined stackable credentials as those that are “part of a sequence of credentials that can be accumulated over time and move an individual along a career pathway or up a career ladder”. The ability to build or stack the credentials a student earns along their educational journey can provide more immediate ROI and a guard rail against job displacement or circumstances causing barriers to degree attainment.
Flexibility is needed for learner-workers today and this is a feature of stackable credentials. The value of stackable credentials as an educational currency makes it easier for students to on-ramp and off-ramp through a program, providing flexibility for the learner when life throws inevitable curveballs. Instead of walking away with debt and no way to directly show what skills were gained through their education thus far, a student can earn market-valued, incremental credentials easing the burden of stop outs when life circumstances arise. Then when time allows, learners can return to where they left off by adding further credentials to the stack that moves them in a career direction or ultimately a degree. Additionally, stackable credentials allow learners to pivot along their pathways to meet their evolving career goals and the ever-changing workforce demands.
There is no doubt that stackable credentials can help drive more immediate return on their (educational) investment (ROI) for learners as they work towards degree attainment. However, the greatest ROI for learners is actualized when stackable credentials are earned in addition to degree attainment. The 2020 Strada-Gallup Education Survey found that learners reported combining a non-degree credential with a degree made them a more attractive and competitive candidate in the talent marketplace.
When considering ROI for a learner in the education system, it is not a zero-sum game or an either-or scenario between non-degree credentials and traditional degrees. The ultimate recipe of value for learner workers is both. When packaged together, non-degree credentials and traditional degrees make the ideal recipe in both short term and long-term ROI for learners.
When packaged together, non-degree credentials and traditional degrees make the ideal recipe in both short term and long-term ROI for learners.
Stackable Credentials Pay Off for Students and Employers
The future is clear when it comes to what a student wants – investment of their time, energy, and finances should equal not only a complete education but an understanding of how to use what has been sharpened by the whetstone of the classroom into a career that supports their ambition and future success. Stackable credentials can and will be a powerful component of the educational journey supplemented by the labor market intelligence for the betterment of each student going forward giving them a clear demonstration of their return on investment.
Stackable credentials allow for more flexible pathways for all learners to build the skills they need when they need them and provide a quicker route for many seeking personal betterment. Additionally, employers will be able to have quicker visibility and access to the talent they so desperately need to fill critical talent gaps as individuals obtain valuable skills-based credentials on their path to a degree. This recipe of quicker time and flexibility along with a hyper-relevant connection and relationship to the current labor market will create for the learner-worker the perfect lightning in a bottle moment to capture a maximum return on investment for their hard work, even if life’s unexpected events occur along the way.
Thank you to WCET Steering Committee member Justin Louder for the next entry in our series on student Return on Investment (ROI) in higher education and the role of digital learning in the equation. Justin shows how a creative public/private partnership between Texas Tech University, a community college, and private entity addressed a shortage in coders in Lubbock.
-Russ Poulin, WCET
In a September 9, 2021 article in Forbes the author writes that, “(i)n the digital age, leaders looking to make killer ideas a reality turn to developers to get it done. Tech know-how is the new currency of industry.” Helping students earn this new currency is why five years ago Texas Tech University (TTU) set out to develop a coding academy whose chief goal was to help individuals move from lower paying hourly jobs into higher paying coding positions.
Texas Tech’s eLearning and Academic Partnerships division visited with business leaders in 2014/2015 to learn more about the local job market needs and how the universities online programs could help meet local demands. It was in those early conversations TTU learned that local businesses were having a hard time filling coding and programming jobs because many of the university graduates left Lubbock and moved to larger metropolitan areas upon graduation. To help the community meet their coding needs, TTU released a competitive RFP to solicit bids for a partnership to launch a coding academy that would lead to non-academic credit credentials and graduates to help local businesses fill open coding job.
The Lubbock Coding Academy was developed through an innovated partnership between Texas Tech University, South Plains College, and a for-profit coding academy from Austin, Texas known as the Austin Coding Academy. TTU was drawn to the Austin Coding Academy because the curriculum was developed, not just by people working with code every day, but with educators and curriculum experts which allowed the curriculum to be engaging and helped students quickly learn to code. In fact, after the first week of classes students can code and publish their own websites.
In Creating a “Coding Academy,” the Emphasis Was on Students
Image Courtesy Lubbock Coding Academy
Simply developing a coding academy wasn’t what Texas Tech was after, we wanted to develop an educational and career pathway to help students not only join the coding workforce but be able to be promoted and work into management positions. Partnering with a local community college was important to creating an educational and career pathway. Students who complete the coursework in the Lubbock Coding Academy can transfer them to South Plains College to meet some of the requirements towards the Associate of Applied Sciences in Computer Information Systems.
Once students have their AAS from South Plains College they can then transfer to Texas Tech University’s Bachelor of Applied Arts & Sciences in Applied Leadership (BAAS) program. The BAAS takes vocational or technical coursework completed at a Community College and transfers that in as academic credit towards the bachelor’s degree. Students who have completed the 60-hour AAS degree at South Plains need to complete 60 additional hours at TTU to graduate.
The Lubbock Coding Academy is a for-profit business run by our partner organization, but it isn’t a significant revenue generator for the coding business, they are covering their costs and providing financial support back to both South Plains College and Texas Tech University for use of school resources and space.
The Public/Private Partnership Benefits Both Students and the Community
Students can qualify for short term private financial aid that allows them to focus on the program and not on the tuition costs. Once a student finishes the coding academy most are being hired into jobs that pay $40-60,000. This increase in salary for students is significant because many were working low-wage hourly jobs before completing the coding academy.
“Coding and programming have been valuable skills for some time, the pandemic accelerated digitalization projects for businesses, making the need to recruit tech talent far more pressing.” (Burazin, 2021). Because west Texas is not overflowing with coding talent, the coding academy is meeting the needs of local small businesses by providing access to local talent for coding jobs. The mission of the partnership is to help students get a leg up and move into a career and not simply a job.
It started before COVID-19. Students, families, businesses, and those considering college questioned the value, the “return on investment” (ROI), of postsecondary education. Could they do better doing something else? Was the debt worth it? Is college for them?
Those questions loomed larger during the pandemic and we know they will keep coming in the future. Luckily, the WCET Steering Committee is currently hosting a several-week examination series of ROI – with special consideration (if possible) on how digital learning can make an impact in the equation.
Today, specifically, we have an insightful post from Shannon Riggs and Jessica DuPont, both from Oregon State University’s Ecampus. Shannon and Jessica share updates on online learning trends and information on financial need and aid availability for online students. They also share specific examples of the impact of these topics on their students. Thank you to Shannon and Jessica for this great post!
Also – a quick favor. WCET is interested in learning more on this topic and would appreciate you taking a quick (less than 5 minutes!) survey on financial aid and need for online students. Help us learn more.
Higher education leaders often discuss affordability as a roadblock to persistence and success for traditional students entering college directly after high school. Affordability is also a barrier for nontraditional learners who are primarily working adults balancing the costs of education in addition to raising a family and paying rent or mortgage and other household bills. As higher education administrators focused on educational technology and policy, understanding the financial aid and scholarship landscape at your institution is foundational to knowing how and where to offer support to your students – including adult learners – so they can cross the finish line. Understanding what data you should be collecting about your online students and knowing how aid is awarded are key to developing practices that will ultimately increase access to education for the growing population of adult learners.
Online education is growing, and so is the population of adult learners.
Student demographics and choice of modalities have been changing, even before the pandemic. In a 2019 Online Learning Market Update, Eduventures projected that by 2025, 22% of all university students in the U.S. will be fully online. At Oregon State University, one in four students is now a fully online student through our centralized online learning division, Ecampus, up from one in five the previous year. In 2020-21, just over 8,000 Oregon State students out of approximately 32,000 students were an online learner any given term. Our online students are primarily adult learners with an average age of 31. The largest segment of online students at Oregon State is motivated to finish their first bachelor’s degree and typically transfer in with credits and student loan debt accumulated from previous institutions.
The numbers of traditional campus-based students at four-year institutions have been steadily decreasing since 2013 due to a high school population decrease or plateau. Now it’s time to shift our gaze to better understand the financial needs of the adult learner population, which is projected to increase in the future. According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s Some College, No Degree report, approximately 36 million Americans have attended some postsecondary education but have not completed and are no longer enrolled. Data from this study suggest that “10 percent of the population or 3.5 million individuals, have a high potential to attain a credential because they already have finished two years of full-time over the previous 10 years.”
Online students have financial need – at some institutions, more need than traditional on-campus students.
Familiarity with the data from your own institution is important in helping to identify gaps in support for online students. A great start is to be able to answer the following questions about your students’ financial:
What percentage of your undergraduate degree-seeking students are Pell-eligible, or have high financial need?
How does your Pell-eligible percentage compare when pulling out exclusively online, adult learners, compared to campus students? Which is higher? (Hint: you may need to enlist an analyst’s help or request a custom query from your office of Financial Aid).
It’s worthwhile to note that Financial Aid offices may be reticent to share Pell data due to federal restrictions. At Oregon State, our Financial Aid office came up with a proxy: internal calculations for high-, medium- and low- financial need.
Answers to the questions above were alarming for us. When we split out campus (more traditional-aged) and online (more adult learners), we learned that, in 2019-20, of students seeking their first bachelor’s degree, a much higher percentage of Ecampus (online) students had a high financial need compared to campus students. In fact, nearly half of our Ecampus students (49%) had high financial need compared to 31% of campus students with high financial need.
Oregon State University Office of Financial Aid, April 2020. The High Financial Need designation is an internal calculation performed by the Oregon State University Office of Financial Aid.
Online students have greater need, but often less access to loans and institutional aid.
The Office of Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education, provides more than $120 billion in federal student aid, which includes grants, work-study, and loan funds each year to help pay for college or career school. Unfortunately, many adult learners have issues with lifetime limits being exhausted from taking previous credits at other institutions. Additionally, college students are not eligible for direct loans if they take fewer than the required number of credits per term or semester. At Oregon State, 84% of fully online learners pursue their degree part-time. Direct loan eligibility requires taking at least half of a full-time load, which amounts to six quarter term credits, typically two courses each term at our university. If a student takes less than six credits, they are not eligible for these loans. Fortunately, Pell grants are incrementally adjusted for part-time status.
Institutional awards and scholarships can greatly lessen the list price of tuition for students, but it’s imperative to know how institutional aid is allocated to your online students. At Oregon State, we learned that many of our institutional processes around financial aid and scholarships still cater to the traditional on-campus learner in spite of online adult learner growth trends. For example, many scholarships require full-time attendance. Others are set up for those admitting for the fall term, when online, adult learners may be starting in any quarter term. Additionally, when we looked into scholarship dollars allocated by audience, we found that the vastmajority of available funds are distributed to traditional campus-based students. This is despite the fact that at our institution, online students have greater financial need. Now representing 1 in 4 of all Oregon State students, Ecampus online students received less than 5% of total scholarship funds awarded through our campus-wide scholarship management system over the past academic year.
GI Bill benefits are reduced for online students, too.
Yet another significant difference in financial aid resources for online and on-campus students is the GI Bill, specifically with how housing allowances are allocated. The GI Bill benefit includes a monthly housing allowance, which is based on housing costs where the institution is located. In areas where housing is more expensive, the allowance is greater, and it is lower where housing is more affordable. On-campus students receive the full housing allowance per month based on their institution’s zip code and the cost of housing at that location. However, regardless of where a student lives, if they pursue their degree 100% online, they receive only half of the national housing allowance average. Half.
For veteran students using this earned benefit, the difference amounts to hundreds of dollars per month. A veteran student at OSU’s Corvallis campus using the GI Bill receives $1,788 per month as their housing allowance. A veteran student pursuing the same exact OSU degree online, however, will receive only $916.50, a difference of $871.50 per month. At Oregon State Ecampus, most of our programs are online versions of programs that are also offered on-campus. Courses meet the same learning outcomes regardless of modality and are often taught by the same faculty teaching on campus.
Why is the housing allowance reduced so sharply simply because a veteran student elects to pursue a degree online? Student housing needs are not diminished if they pursue their degrees online, so the rationale for this inequitable distribution of this earned veterans’ benefit is not clear.
What is clear is that we have work to do in ensuring that financial aid resources are as available to adult learners studying online as they are for traditional students studying on campus.
What can we do to reduce financial barriers for online students?
At Oregon State, the online student data surrounding high financial need coupled with the lack of institutional scholarships provided enough of an incentive to better advocate for our students and more formally collaborate with campus partners who could help. We still have work to do, but we are committed to reducing barriers for our students.
What can you do to help online students at your institution? We have a few ideas:
Idea #1:
Learn how scholarships and institutional aid are awarded at your institution. Your Financial Aid and Scholarship offices can help. Ask how fully online students are included in and awarded scholarships. If they aren’t, can they be? Higher education institutions have the oversight to offer a variety of aid to their students at their own discretion, including recruitment scholarships, hardship grants, completion grants, additional military aid, and merit scholarships.
Idea #2:
What budget do you have available to create your own grants specific to online learners? At Oregon State Ecampus, and over the years, these have included hardship grants, additional military aid, completion scholarships and re-enroll incentives – all for online students.
Idea #3:
Partner with academic colleges, especially those with the largest online programs. Scholarships are often overseen and awarded in a decentralized manner. At Oregon State, we have more than 40 scholarship administrators. Our division of Ecampus has recently created agreements with half of our eight partnering colleges that include matching funds to award scholarships to online students, especially those who may not be eligible for other college scholarships.
What ideas do you have? We’d love to hear them.
A quick reminder – WCET is interested in learning more on this topic and would appreciate you taking a quick (less than 5 minutes!) survey on financial aid and need for online students. Help us learn more.
Welcome to our continued celebration of 2021 WOW awardees! We’re joined today by Jenny L. Reichart, who is the Faculty Development Specialist and Inclusion Ambassador with the Teaching Transformation and Development Academy (TTaDA) at the University of North Dakota (UND). The TTaDA team was selected as a WOW recipient this year due to their innovative and enthusiastic support of faculty, their institution, their students, and national social justice movements.
This is our final post in our annual blog post series featuring posts from our 2021 WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award Winners.
This year we took a slightly different focus and asked for stories that described the intensely hard work that WCET member institutional staff, instructors, administrators, and students heroically stepped up with to the meet the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Congratulations to the 2021 WOW awardees:
Colorado Technical University.
Miami University Regionals E-Campus.
University of Alabama.
University of Louisville.
University of North Dakota.
University of Texas at San Antonio.
Congrats and thank you to the University of North Dakota and the digital learning angels/heroes highlighted in today’s post.Make sure to check out all of the previous posts in this year’s WOW series. You can learn more about our awards at this year’s WCET Annual Meeting!
Enjoy the read and enjoy your day,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
The University of North Dakota’s Teaching Transformation and Development Academy (TTaDA) received one of the 2021 WCET WOW Awards for setting the highest standards of excellence amidst the 2020 pandemic. While we are proud of this achievement, we are not complacent; indeed, we work on a continuous improvement model that has been featured in many conferences and publications. In fact, our acronym TTaDA itself speaks to our ability to work magic in the face of adversity.
Our Pioneering Spirit
Before the pandemic, TTaDA was already one step ahead with our Academic Continuity Plan. Due to some seasonal and regional flooding, we had the plan in place and, when the pandemic hit, we were ready.
The North Dakota State motto is “Be Legendary,” and the University of North Dakota’s motto is “Leaders in Action.” In Spring 2020, all our courses rapidly migrated to remote instruction. In response, we created an onboarding orientation, a course development plan, and a new interactive rubric. We supported faculty with letters of understanding, development stipends, and exemplary course awards. Additionally, TTaDA hosted campus-wide tutorials and Q&As as synchronous sessions to better prepare faculty. In Summer and Fall 2020, TTaDA also assisted faculty in the creation, development, and revision of 455 online courses. We developed 35 new SPEA (self-paced enroll anytime) courses and laboratories and launched six new one-credit HyFlex intersession courses. We now categorize every course at the University of North Dakota as HyFlex or SPEA, making us pioneers in online education. This pioneering spirit has greatly improved our student outcomes.
Unprecedented Growth
We supported our HyFlex model in various ways, including:
offering 235 synchronous workshops for faculty, staff, and graduate students. In total, we reached 1,063 individual employees and issued 1,774 digital badges.
responding to development needs asynchronously by uploading 57 videos, which were viewed 1,000 times on YouTube with a total watch time of 114.8 hours.
providing 2,017 writing center sessions and responded to 6,075 academic technology tickets.
TTaDA also responded to national social justice needs by:
offering two book studies on diversity, equity, and inclusive excellence about universal design for learning and anti-racism, hosting a total of 319 participants.
welcoming participants (170 live and 687 via HyFlex sessions) to our Spring Innovative Learning Symposium on universal design for learning, which was led by a national expert.
adopting new academic technologies and adding more of these to our learning spaces, all of which better support and enhance HyFlex learning.
We saw outstanding improvements in our student outcomes and retention, including a:
Photo by Marcus Aurelius from Pexels
3.35% increase in undergraduate transfer,
6.27% increase in graduate-level enrollment,
5% increase in racial diversity, and,
a dramatic 18.4% increase of online enrollment in Fall 2020 from Fall 2019.
Individually, we helped increase faculty satisfaction in course creation by developing a new evaluative course rubric and student evaluation scores of faculty and courses while also establishing new assessment and evaluation methods for TTaDA offerings and faculty. At a time when most of higher education was struggling, we fostered tremendous growth due to implementing innovative best practices in faculty development, instructional design, curriculum planning, and online excellence.
Innovative Collaboration
These efforts were viable due to our own departmental growth, including namely six new positions in faculty development, staff development and instructional design. This expansion then supported the hiring of 47 new full-time faculty in Fall 2020. We provided diversity training for ROTC faculty and core advisors, video production services for first-year experience instructors, and a faculty summer self-care program. Meanwhile, our Office of Extended Learning and Writing Center supported our students by pivoting to provide proctoring and captioning services. We accomplished all of this as a team of over 50 individuals while working remotely across multiple states and time zones.
The implementation of the online course design rubric offered innovative opportunities for faculty development. The rubric itself encouraged and incentivized faculty development via course development. With the implementation of a new badging program, faculty could receive up to three badges based in full or partially on their online course design rubric scores. The three badges are incremental:
Badge 1: “Meets UND Online Course Design Standards,”
Badge 2: “Exceeds UND Online Course Design Standards,” and,
Badge 3: “Exemplary Educator.”
The first two badges respond only to the online course design rubric scores, while the third incorporates those scores along with other forms of concurrent faculty development such as completing the Blackboard Online Best Practices self-based course for faculty, achieving a high Blackboard Ally score (accessibility) across all of their courses, presenting as part of the Faculty Lecture Series, and participating in the Alice T. Clark Faculty Mentoring Program.
The opportunity for ongoing engagement and improvement incentivizes faculty to improve their courses through the somewhat gamified model of the online course design rubric scores and the badging series. It encourages faculty to think critically about the areas where they earned low scores and improve their scores via the implementation of best practices. Throughout the process, faculty members are supported by faculty developers and instructional designers in creating new course materials and models including HyFlex course models, alternative assessments, and interactive lectures. This customized support moves us all away from the mentality of one-size-fits-all model and the check-a-box-to-complete modus operandi. If you are checking a box, then you are only engaging in summative assessment, and there is no iterative process. However, if you are asking a question, then you are engaging in formative assessment and thus contributing to a continuous improvement model.
The “Angels of TTaDA”
TTaDA’s transformative and developmental impact for our university community was best described by one of the professors at the University of North Dakota when they said:
“I am beyond impressed with the number and variety of trainings you have all offered. I have always resisted teaching online courses, but now I will be much more open to it. It’s been a good growth opportunity for me.”
While we love the title of “Digital Learning Heroes” associated with winning this WOW award, we are perhaps most proud of our faculty nickname, the “Angels of TTaDA.” We are indeed superheroes.
NUTN, the National University Technology Network, is a consortium of higher education institutions that just celebrated its 35th anniversary. As of September 1, NUTN is now incorporated into WCET. We welcome our new friends and are glad to have them on board. In today’s post we look back at the history of NUTN and at what lies ahead in this expanding new relationship with WCET.
Joining us in this conversation are three NUTN leaders giving us different perspectives on the organization:
Pam Quinn just retired (congratulations Pam!) as the Provost, LeCroy Center for Educational Telecommunications at the Dallas County Community College District. A past NUTN Chair, Pam has been active with NUTN since its first meeting, and the LeCroy Center hosted the organizations operations for the past 11 years.
Justin Louder is the Associate Vice Provost of eLearning and Academic Partnerships at Texas Tech University and chaired the NUTN Advisory Board.
Rob Rosenbalm was the Managing Director of the NUTN Network and was the one who made things happen.
Q: Pam, let’s start with you. You have been active with NUTN throughout its history, could you tell us about the early days and the driving forces behind creating this organization?
A: NUTN has been an acronym for the National University Technology Network, but when it was founded, the “T” stood for Teleconferencing network. Founded by JO Grantham of Oklahoma State University, the first conference was held in the spring of 1983 at the Hyatt in Kansas City, MO. Grantham and other advocates and university users of satellite teleconferencing for teaching, assembled a group of over 50 participants to help improve the way we could teach with satellites but also to share each other’s teleconferences when the subject matter was applicable.
Pam Quinn, former NUTN chair and recently retired from Dallas County Community College
I was early in my career when I attended that first conference and knew nothing about how satellites worked. Grantham got up in front of the attendees drawing a picture of a satellite uplink dish on a flip chart on one side of the room. He then ran with his arms pointing up into the air at an imaginary satellite in the sky across the room to another flip chart where he drew a rudimentary farm house where the signal was downlinked. His visual and physical demonstration (sans PPT or video) was extremely effective, and everyone in the room immediately understood what he was talking about.
Of the 50 people in attendance, Russ Adkins and Fred Hurst, both from Wichita State at the time and Ronda Edwards, then from East Lansing CC, were the only other people that I still know today. NUTN grew from that first meeting into a thriving consortium of colleges and universities who together pioneered the use of satellite teleconferencing as viable way to teach students at a distance across state lines with one-way video and two-way audio.
Q: Pam, what were some of the successful activities and events that mark NUTN’s history?
A: As one of the first consortiums using technology to teach, NUTN was all about sharing ideas that worked and developing best practices. NUTN grew to over 200 institutions that included community colleges but was primarily attracting land-grant universities who were developing distance education programs as part of their Continuing Education outreach mission. NUTN worked with vendors as well as institutions to find new ways to reach students who couldn’t or wouldn’t come to a campus. Vendors and educators sat side-by-side on the board with one goal in common: to effectively use technology to teach and learn at a distance.
Although technology continually changed, NUTN’s conferences remained a constant since 1983. The 35 annual meetings moved around the country to attract both current and new users of satellite teleconferencing. When the NUTN Board realized that the technology that was above the ground, like ITFS and satellites, was all moving under the ground, like cable and the internet, NUTN changed to stay current. Like most consortiums that were founded around a certain technology, we all ended up using the internet and the National University Technology Network became known for smaller conferences focusing on leadership in distance education. One of the most successful conferences was held in Kennebunkport when NUTN began focusing on the importance of quality in online learning. This was before any other group made “quality” their focus. NUTN was always looking for ways to share best practices to improve distance learning for faculty and students everywhere.
NUTN also began recognizing leaders at all levels that were promoting ways to serve distance students. The person to first receive the annual NUTN Distinguished Service Award was Governor Michael Leavitt of Utah in 1998 who was one of the two founding governors of Western Governors University. Gov. Leavitt attended our meeting in Vail that year and talked about the reason he and Governor Roy Romer of Colorado believed strongly in finding new ways to get more adult students through the pipeline. They championed WGU as this new kind of university and worked to get it approved by four different accrediting agencies, a feat that few, if any other university, has achieved. NUTN’s recognition of pioneering educators, technology developers, thought leaders, and politicians helped build and strengthen the field of distance learning that we know today.
Q: Robert, could you talk about the rich relationships you created and some of the more memorable experiences?
The core of NUTN has always been relationships. My first NUTN conference was in San Antonio in 2003. I was invited to be on a panel facilitated by Dr. Gary Woods, then head of voluntary education at the Department of Defense. I went to the conference knowing no one in advance. Not only did I leave as a volunteer on the marketing committee, but I met a number of outgoing individuals that I still interact with today. The forming of new connections and strengthening of old ones has never stopped. I’ve interacted with and been inspired by DL professionals from all kinds of institutions and from all over the world. I’ve even had the opportunity to visit many NUTN members schools all over the US and Canada.
Robert Rosenbalm, former Managing Director, NUTN
The countryside surrounding Memorial University and College of the North Atlantic (both in Newfoundland, Canada) is some of the most breathtaking I’ve ever seen. The great folks at Savannah College of Art and Design rolled out the red carpet for us in 2015 for a one of a kind experience.
Probably the event I remember the most was the awards luncheon during our 2008 conference in Park City, Utah. The luncheon was scheduled at the hotel’s ski lodge at the top of the mountain. We were to take the high-speed gondolas over the treetops and ravines and up to the event. Keeping in mind that back in 2008 we still held a summer conference, as we were to head up to the lodge it started to snow. We had a great awards ceremony including a keynote by our Distinguished Service Award recipient, Dr. Gary Allen, looking out over the snowfall. As we readied to make our descent, the sun broke through the clouds and it was green grass and summer temperatures by the time we reached the base of the mountain.
Q: Justin, you are a more recent addition to the NUTN family and chaired the Advisory Committee. Could you share about some of the issues that were addressed in NUTN meetings or projects that you found particularly helpful to the community?
I think what drew me and Texas Tech to NUTN, along with many others, was the networking aspect of the organization. Coming together as a board, or as the larger organization allowed for opportunities to sit and talk with others in similar roles all over the US and Canada. I think as a board we never wanted someone to feel isolated at our events or meetings; you wanted to hear from all sides to discuss issues schools were dealing with online or technology-assisted education.
Justin Louder of Texas Tech U. and former NUTN chair
Over the last few years, as NUTN was working on reinventing itself, we tried to do smaller events focused on one topic so everyone could dig into the issue. We did a highly successful daylong event (in partnership with WCET) on accreditation and how distance and online education impacts an institutions overall regional accreditation. We had speakers from most of the regional accreditors, legal scholars, and speakers from both public and private, for-profit institutions. We came together as a community of educators to discuss how we needed to prepare for and work with accreditation for online/distance ed.
Another event that I am particularly proud of was a summit we had on Open Educational Resources before many professional organizations in the online/distance ed space talked about OER. Once again, NUTN was able to bring together experts from across the nation together to talk about how faculty utilizes OER resources, how institutions could implement OER initiatives, and what copyright or legal issues you might face.
NUTN events covered hot topic issues that schools and institutions were dealing with, problems that might not have been included at other conferences or by other organizations. Because NUTN was a nimble organization, we could pivot and talk about what our schools were dealing with quickly and try to produce materials or opportunities for a discussion around the issue to help our members resolve whatever was going on.
Q: Each of you and the Board were instrumental in negotiating this new arrangement with WCET. Why WCET?
Pam: Through the 35 years since NUTN was founded, members have always been extremely loyal to the organization. In fact, most people joined NUTN not just because of what they learned, but because of the network of colleagues they formed. In our field with most of us not having institutional leadership who studied or understood distance learning and teaching with technology, the network of colleagues was critical for personal support and development. Since Justin Louder and I had both served as NUTN chairs and also on WCET’s committees, we knew that the culture and commitment of WCET was close to what NUTN’s has been. It was important for the NUTN board to pursue a good match for the members, and WCET was the best solution. We know and respect WCET’s leadership and trust that the NUTN members will thrive within WCET’s culture.
Justin: As the NUTN board looked at what the next phase for NUTN would be the board had to decide if NUTN would disband or somehow merge with another organization so that the NUTN spirit could survive. The board made the decision that NUTN needed to merge with another organization aimed at enhancing educational technology and education in general. WCET is an outstanding organization, one whose mission is very near to NUTNs, we wanted our members to have the opportunity to be a part of an organization that valued networking and the collegiality just as much as NUTN did.
Q: Looking forward, what do you hope to see from this transition of NUTN being integrated into WCET?
Pam: The field of distance learning is no longer marginal. It is mainstream education. With the trend of continuous growth in online learning over the past 20 years, it will be important for those who have studied and advocated for online learning to continue to have a voice. Many IT professionals think they developed online because it has involved computers and digital technology. However, the real developers are those who have worked tirelessly for years to make distance and online education at least as good or better than traditional classroom education. With the research and advocacy of the WCET leadership, this provides the continuing foundation for online to continue to grow and excel as it serves more and more students each year. With former NUTN members working side by side with the excellent work of WCET and its members, this strengthens the field and provides the successful platform necessary for the future.
Justin: NUTN was one of the first organizations in the technology-enhanced space, and over the course of NUTNs thirty-five-year existence it was one of the leading organizations talking about everything from telecourses to adaptive courseware, we talked about copyright, how to serve our students and teachers, so they felt connected to the institution. I think these discussions will continue with WCET and its membership because as Pam said, distance learning is no longer marginal, it is a crucial component to most institutions of higher education because our students and faculty expect to be able to learn or teach anytime and from any place. Working together as one organization we can continue to advocate for the best possible solutions to technology-enhanced learning and be a leading voice in practice and policy relating to online and distance education.
Robert: I hope that NUTN’s members, current and past and along with the WCET, can continue to lead the way to innovation in higher education. Working together is the best way to put students first.
Q: Any last thoughts or wisdom to share?
Pam: Having been heavily involved in distance learning throughout my career, from telecourses to cable, to satellites and to the internet, I’ve worked with faculty and students as we’ve all pioneered new ways to teach and learn.
I’ve been dedicated to this field for 36 years, and I’m excited about the future. However, it is essential that we continually research and discover the best ways to serve students with whatever technology comes next. Those students working remotely need the special student services to make enrolling and registering easy. They need the courses and the faculty to engage them so that they are retained.
With distance learning students sometimes feeling isolated or disconnected, we must continue to develop the institutional support that recognizes their needs and serves them as best as we can. As I just recently moved into the phase I prefer to call rewirement, I remain an advocate for doing things right. Keep up the good work, WCET and all its members. Students depend on your focus, dedication, and leadership.
Thank you, Pam, Justin, and Robert, for sharing your history and your hopes for the transition.
We also appreciate your leadership and patience as we worked through this transition. You should be proud that we have made it to this next phase.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director of Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu @russpoulin
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OK
Q: Pam, let’s start with you. You have been active with NUTN throughout its history, could you tell us about the early days and the driving forces behind creating this organization?
