Author: WCET Frontiers

Categories
Practice

IPEDS Fall 2013: Higher Ed Sectors Vary Greatly in Distance Ed Enrollments

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date March 5, 2015
10 Comments on IPEDS Fall 2013: Higher Ed Sectors Vary Greatly in Distance Ed Enrollments
frontiers feature image logo

This is the first of a series of posts providing insight on data regarding enrollments in distance education that was released by the U.S. Department of Education earlier this year.  Terri Taylor Straut crunched the data for WCET.  Terri has a deep knowledge of the distance education world and we appreciate her thorough analysis. As noted below, Phil Hill of the e-Literate blog has published several articles on this issue.  We communicated with him to make sure that our work was complementary with his and followed the same methodology.  The most recent version of the Babson Survey Research Group study of enrollments in online learning this year switched to using the IPEDS data.  Phil Hill and I provided an update in that publication on some of the short-coming we found last year with institutions answering the IPEDS survey.

This series will examine three different aspects of the IPEDS distance education enrollments: 1) overall distance education enrollments in 2013, 2) comparisons of the 2012 to 2013 data, and 3) the data on serving students in other states and the implications on state authorizations.

We will use a headline format (highlighting the major findings) and have some observations that are slightly different than those made by Phil Hill or Babson.

Thank you,
Russ Poulin, WCET

The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) released the second year of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data that reports Distance Education (DE) course enrollment for the Fall of 2013. The fact that we now have two consecutive years of DE data may lead us to believe that we can finally begin tracking enrollment trends. However, as reported in the Frontier’s blog last fall, there are still issues with the reporting methodology used by many institutions when reporting their DE enrollments to IPEDs. Since the Fall 2013 data was reported to IPEDS before any publication about the challenges with the Fall 2012 were published by WCET and e-Literate, we believe that there are also problems with the validity of the Fall 2013 data. Please see the Methodology section at the end of this blog for more detail.

Previous reports by the Babson Survey Research Group and e-Literate have led with headlines about the overall flat growth in distance education. Our WCET analysis looks more closely at the sector data, which reveals more nuanced results and supports the continued dominance of public institutions in the offering of distance education courses to students nationwide.

A statistical note: The IPEDS Fall Enrollment is focused at the point in time of Fall 2013.  The survey asks institutions to separate students into three categories:

  • Enrolled Exclusively in Distance Education Courses.
  • Enrolled in Some (But Not All) Distance Education Courses.
  • Not Enrolled in Any Distance Education Courses.

We focus primarily on the first two categories and add them together to create a new category of student who took at least one distance education course.

Publics Enrolled about 3/4 of all Students

Public institutions of higher education continue to educate nearly three-fourths (72%) of all enrolled students, regardless of mode of delivery. For all the discussion about the impact of the many new players and the profit motive, the majority of learners still attend public institutions. Non-Profits account for 20% of all enrollment, and despite all the hype, For-Profits enrolled just 8% of US learners in 2013.

Table 1: Sectors as Percentage of Total Higher Education Enrollments

2013 Sector Data Total Enrollments Sector Enrollment as % of Total Enrollment
Public 14,745,558 72%
Private,
Non-Profit		 3,974,004 20%
Private,
For-Profit		 1,656,227 8%
Totals 20,375,789 100%

 

OneinEight


The Percentage of Exclusively Distance Students Varies Significantly by Sector:

  • One-in-Eleven Public Students
  • One-in-Eight Non-profit Students
  • Over Half of For-profit Students13PERCENT

 While For-profit institutions account for just 8% of total enrollments, they have successfully grown their exclusively online programs so that they now account for 52% of all For-profit enrollments. For-Profits have successfully launched exclusively online programs earlier than the other sectors. It is this accomplishment that receives much attention in the media and in the distance education marketplace. It is also important to note the Exclusively DE programs account for about 13% of all student enrollments in Fall 2013, or one out of eight students is studying exclusively online.

Table 2: Exclusively DE Enrollment as Percentage of Total Sector Enrollment

Sectors Total Sector Enrollment Students enrolled exclusively in distance education courses as % of Total Sector Enrollment
Public 14,745,558 1,281,880 9%
Private, Non-Profit 3,974,004 520,390 13%
Private, For-Profit 1,656,227 856,933 52%
 Totals 20,375,789 2,659,203 13%

ExclusiveDEPiegreenFor-Profit Enrollments Comprise Less than A Third of All Fully Distant Students
Public Institutions Account for Almost Half of All Fully Distant Students

It is still a common myth held by many in the public, in the press, and in the policy arena that almost all of the enrollments in distance education is in the for-profit sector.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

For-Profit enrollments represent just 32% of Exclusively Distance Education student enrollments reported in 2013. So while fully online learning is the dominant mode for the For-Profit sector, public institutions are still enrolling more online learners, 1,281,880 than the For-Profits with 856,933 student enrollments fully at a distance.

 

Table 3: Students Enrolled Exclusively in DE by Sector

Sectors Students enrolled exclusively in distance education courses as
% of Exclusively DE Enrollment
Public 1,281,880 48%
Private, Non-Profit 520,390 20%
Private, For-Profit 856,933 32%
 Total 2,659,203 100%

 

Almost 90% of Students Taking Some Distance Education Course are Enrolled in Public Institutions

It is Relatively Rare for a Non-profit or For-profit Student to Mix Face-to-Face and Distance Courses

 

Table 4: Students Enrolled in Some But Not All DE Courses by Sector

Sectors Students enrolled in some but not all distance education courses as % of Exclusively DE Enrollment
Public 2,462,362 87%
Private, Non-Profit 275,020 10%
Private, For-Profit 125,609 4%
 Totals 2,862,991 100%

OneinFourPublic Students Taking at Least One Distance Course Outnumber For-profits 4 to 1

As described in the methodology section below, to approximate the Babson definition of online course enrollments, the IPEDS results for “students enrolled in some but not all distance education courses” and “students enrolled exclusively in distance education courses” are combined. When we look at sector data, using this broader definition of online enrollments, we see that more than one-in-four students (27%) took at least one online course in Fall 2013. And once again, there are far more enrollments in the Publics (3,744,242) than in the For-Profits (982,542) or Non-Profits (795,410). In fact, Public IHE online enrollments outnumber Private For-Profit enrollment 4 to 1.

Table 5: Enrollment in At Least One DE Course by Sector

Sectors Total Enrollment Students enrolled exclusively in DE courses Students enrolled in some but not all DE courses Students enrolled in at least one DE course as % of Total Enrollment
Public 14,745,558 1,281,880 2,462,362 3,744,242 25%
Private, Non-Profit 3,974,004 520,390 275,020 795,410 20%
Private, For-Profit 1,656,227 856,933 125,609 982,542 59%
 Totals 20,375,789 2,659,203 2,862,991 5,522,194 27%

Conclusions

distance-ed-enrollmentsIt is not our intention to place value judgments on the different sectors, but rather to puncture some common myths around distance education enrollments by sector.  Having a better handle on the activity in distance education enrollments and the type of activity (fully distance or mixed), helps us to better understand the marketplace whether we are interested in completive positioning or regulatory oversight.

The analysis of sector data reveals that Public institutions of higher education continue to educate the lion’s share of students and students taking online courses, both as a component of their course load and exclusively online. While the For-Profits enroll a higher proportion of their enrollments fully online, they remain far from dominating the distance education marketplace.

In the next blog post, despite reservations about the validity of the IPEDS data (see Methodology below), we will focus on comparisons between Fall 2012 and Fall 2013 enrollment in distance education courses.  We will examine the recent headlines regarding distance education growth being flat.  It is definitely true overall, but not in all cases.  Stay tuned.

 

Terri StrautTerri Taylor Straut
Ascension Consulting

 

 

 

 

Russ PoulinRuss Poulin
Director, Policy and Analysis
WCET

 

If you like our work, join WCET!

 

Methodology

Matching the Fall 2012 process, analysis of the Fall 2013 IPEDS data was conducted on all degree granting institutions in the U.S. This presents 4,724 institutions of higher education (IHE) in total, both 4-year and 2-year colleges. This data set matches the data set that Phil Hill, edtech author and blogger at e-Literate, has used in his recent blogs on the topic of Fall 2013 IPEDS data. According to Phil, the data set also matches the historical data reported by the Babson Survey Research Group (BSRG)/Sloan-C/Pearson survey. In order to approximate the same measures used by the prior survey, the data fields, “enrolled exclusively in DE courses” and “enrolled in some but not all DE courses” were combined to match the Babson category “enrolled in at least one online course”. We want to thank Phil for his early analysis of the Fall 2012 data and for his ongoing collaboration with the BSRG to ensure that the two data sets can be compared appropriately. Phil has also done a fine job of illuminating the differences in the data and definitions used.

The biggest caveat is this:  Given the errors that we found in colleges reporting to IPEDS, the Fall 2012 distance education reported enrollments create a very unstable base for comparisons.

The fact that the Department of Education has included DE data in annual IPEDS reporting is a solid step towards having comprehensive, reliable data from every institution in the U.S. As the reporting becomes more consistent from year to year and between institutions, the data will be more reliable and stronger conclusions will be able to be drawn from the data. We are not there yet.

The IPEDS DE data that the distance education market wants very much to rely upon as a baseline to measure industry changes will not be accurate until all 4,700+ institutions have a shared understanding of the definitions and reporting requirements. In addition to understanding how they need to report the data, they need the systems in place to collect and report accurate data about their DE students, as well as the entire student population. Without this consistency, the industry continues to function without any reliable measures of change from year-to-year, by sector, or otherwise.

 

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Practice

WCET Strategic Priorities: Practice, Policy, and Advocacy

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date February 24, 2015
2 Comments on WCET Strategic Priorities: Practice, Policy, and Advocacy
frontiers feature image logo

Today we hear from Peter Smith, Founding President, Open College @ Kaplan University and chair of the WCET Executive Council.  Thank you Peter for your insights today and the leadership you provide your Cooperative.

It is a tremendous honor to have the opportunity to serve as the Chair of the WCET Executive Committee, especially as the “Abbiatti Era” dawns at WCET. Once again, WCET has identified the right leader at the right time to address the challenges and opportunities that we and our members face in the educational technology space.

As those of you who have worked with Mike know, he moves quickly and surely to define objectives and create clarity of direction and purpose. Since he arrived, Mike has worked with the staff, members of the Steering Committee and the Executive Council, to list, prioritize, and select a limited number of three strategic focus areas for WCET. They represent, I believe, appropriately diverse levels and types of activity that are at one and the same time aggressive, important, and achievable.

Practice

22253314_sThere are three areas which have been identified for strategic focus, each distinct from the other two, but all intertwined in an organizational DNA that will prove extremely valuable. Historically, WCET is a membership organization which focuses on best and emerging practices in the use of technology in Higher Education at the institutional level. This will continue to be the organizing vision and purpose of WCET: to serve the practice-related needs of our institutional and other members in the use of technology. In my opinion, no one does it better than we do. But by choosing it as an explicit strategic focus area, it will drive a more operational focus, and hence improvement, going forward.

Policy

At the same time, we all know and understand that the policy arena in higher education will be significantly occupied by technology-oriented issues as well as the disruptive consequences of big data, abundant information, and new technological capacities emerging every day. Therefore, it makes all the sense in the world that WCET should lead the analysis of policy that impacts technology-enhanced teaching and learning. This year, it will undoubtedly involve the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. But as we have seen from other initiatives, such as PAR and SARA, the policy conversations of the future will be as diverse as they are, in some cases, unanticipated.

Advocacy

Finally, when you consider the sum total of these first two priorities, it suggests that WCET’s third area of strategic focus should be advocacy, guiding proposed regulations and policies so that they result in practices that benefit students while also balancing the needs of institutions and governments. While we can and should engage in joint advocacy with other groups, and there will be, and should be, other voices in this discussion, WCET’s membership base, focus on practice, and history in the advocacy field position us well to be a major national and global voice.

I look forward to an exciting and productive year working with Mike, his extraordinary team, the Executive and Steering Committee members and all the members who make WCET the vital and important organization that it has become. We are standing at a crossroads in higher education. The leadership opportunity in practice, policy and advocacy in and for technology –related issues has never been bigger or more important. Working together, we can seize the future.

Peter SmithPeter Smith
Founding President
Open College @ Kaplan University

Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Empowering Practices: 3 Steps You Can Take Now To Improve Academic Integrity

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date February 17, 2015
frontiers feature image logo

Today we welcome academic integrity expert Tricia Bertam Gallant, Outreach Coordinator at the International Center on Integrity, who will share with us how they are helping institutions employ academic integrity best practices.  The “Trusted Seal of Integrity” should help us combat issues like those addressed in this December 30 article.  Tricia and her team are making great strides, but they can’t combat integrity issues in a bubble, they need the support of the entire academic community to do so!  Thank you Tricia for the informative blog and the great work you’re doing.   

There is a rumor I frequently hear uttered (both under one’s breath and outright, as if in exclamation) — “online students cheat more than regular students!”

This rumor is uttered in traditional brick and mortar institutions by faculty who are resisting online education. It is uttered in general society by people who want, yet fear, new and expanding opportunities for people to undertake higher education. And the rumor is uttered by online instructors who worry that academic integrity will be undermined by people they cannot identify or know.

The truth is that there is no research to support the claim that online students cheat more than students who take traditional brick-and-mortar classes. The research, in fact, is inconclusive. Some online students cheat more than some traditional students, and some traditional classes have more cheating than some online classes.

Why is the Research on Online Cheating Inconclusive?

CAII_SquareICAILogoThe research is inconclusive because the research doesn’t consider the practices employed by the instructors of those courses. And the truth is that online and traditional brick-and-mortar class instructors can implement the same best practices to enhance integrity and reduce cheating. There is no secret here to what works – we just need to commit to applying them in the online educational environment.

The best practices to enhancing integrity and reducing cheating in any classroom are to:

  1. Inform and Educate
  2. Prevent & Protect
  3. Practice & Support

Inform and Educate

Generally speaking, many university bound students are ignorant of academic integrity. Yes, they may have been taught not to lie, cheat or steal, like most of us, but they have existed (and thrived) in educational environments in which almost any method for getting assignments in and passing tests is acceptable, or at least, only lightly punished.

This means that our domestic or international, online or face-to-face, younger or older students, all need to be informed and educated on academic integrity and specifically about the academic integrity “dos and don’ts” of a particular classroom, program and/or institution. And, their knowledge needs to be assessed so we can be more certain that they do share the same understanding that we do.

Prevent and Protect

We also need to take steps to ensure that our assessment practices promote integrity. Are we verifying student identity when they are demonstrating their knowledge? Are we monitoring and verifying the integrity of assessments? This is critical, of course, in both in-person and online exams.

If the online students are taking their exams in person, the institution should ensure that the testing site is employing best integrity practices, and if the online student is taking his or her exam remotely, the institution should be using technological tools to ensure that the person completing the assessment is the person who is enrolled in the class.

Practice and Support

Finally, in order to support both faculty and students in ensuring that integrity is the norm and cheating is the exception, the program and institution needs policies and procedures that are consistently implemented, equitable, and reviewed.  These policies should encourage consistent reporting of integrity violations, provide for a fair and educational process for alleged violators, provide a teachable moment, and be reviewed every 3-5 years to ensure the integrity of the process.

The “Trusted Seal of Integrity”

Trusted SealIf we manage to do these three things in online (or face-to-face) educational environments, then we will be employing best integrity practices, and, perhaps more importantly, it will be more likely than not that cheating will be the exception and integrity the norm.

To help faculty, programs and institutions employ these best integrity practices, the International Center for Academic Integrity and Software Secure have partnered to develop the Trusted Seal of Integrity program. This program provides faculty, programs and institutions with a rubric by which they can assess how well they are employing best integrity practices. And, if they are performing sufficiently, they can be awarded the Trusted Seal – a public declaration that integrity is a priority for the instructor, the program and the institution.

For more information about Trusted Seal, you can email me or visit us at www.integritytrusted.com. I’d be happy to hear from you!

 

Dr. GallantTricia Bertram Gallant

ICAI & Trusted Seal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Defining a Research Agenda for Distance Education

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date February 10, 2015
1 Comment on Defining a Research Agenda for Distance Education
frontiers feature image logo

Thank you to Tanya Joosten, Laura Pedrick, and Diane Reddy for inviting me to a summit to kick-off the new National Research Center for Distance Education and Technological Advancements.  Operated by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, DETA (as they have thankfully monikered the effort) is:

“…funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, seeks to foster student access and success through evidence-based, cross-institutional online learning practices and technologies.  Moreover, the DETA Research Center looks to identify and evaluate effective course and institutional practices in online learning, including competency-based education, specifically addressing underrepresented populations.”

This effort is long overdue as I’m for anything that helps to answer the standard (but untrue) charge that “there is no research on distance education.”  When you point to the literature, then they amend it to, “there is no good research on distance education.”   As someone with a degree in educational statistics, the dirty little secret is that there is an uncomfortable amount of not-very-good research on higher education, regardless of the mode of instruction.  But, enough about my pet peeves.

DETA Will Create Rigorous, Interdisciplinary, and Standardized Research

The ultimate goal is to:

“Conduct rigorous, interdisciplinary, and standardized research to identify outcomes and influences on all students, including those with disabilities.”  

DETA Meeting February 2015According to Dr. Joosten, they plan to create research protocols that meet the “What Works Clearinghouse” guidelines.  The Clearinghouse promotes randomized trials and quasi-experimental research designs where randomization is not possible.

Monday’s summit was the first step in identifying research questions, formulating measures, and developing research instruments.   There were lively discussions across a wide range of possible research questions that included attention to inputs (student characteristics, faculty preparation, student support systems), outputs (measures of success both traditional and new), and throughputs (interventions along the way that help the student succeed).

DETA will create “research toolkits” for each research question that they choose.  In year two of the grant, they will issue RFP’s for institutions (with a possible preference to groups of institution) that will conduct the research using the toolkits.

This idea of replicability of research is a key one to me.  Quite often the research is one-off look at how a few students fared in a small number of course sections.  We could learn much by taking a research design that has been vetted as a strong research model and apply it in a variety of institutional settings and/or students representing different demographic characteristics.   We could answer the questions, “does that instance of technology-mediated instruction work?,” “in what settings does it work?,” and “in what settings does it not work?”

From the findings of the research, DETA will create effective case studies on what they have learned.  The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) is the official dissemination partner, but WCET is very interested in helping in both the formative and dissemination stages.  I’m sure our members are eager to conduct research that leads to improved student learning.

Follow DETA’s Work

Kudos to our friends at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for using a very open model for their processes.  See their grant website for more information on DETA and its progress.  The Summit website includes lists of participants, background documents, and the discussions from each subgroup.

DETA is compiling the input and will continue to keep us informed on their progress.  As WCET learns more, we will invite DETA staff to update us.

As a stats geek, it’s delightful to see that we are on the path to a solid research agenda for distance education and other forms of technology-mediated learning.

 

Russ PoulinRuss Poulin
Deputy Director, Research & Analysis
WCET

 

 

 

 

Tags , ,
Categories
Practice

Strong Signals for HEA Reauthorization in 2015

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date January 29, 2015
1 Comment on Strong Signals for HEA Reauthorization in 2015
frontiers feature image logo

With great foresight into the happenings of the Hill, today Christopher T. Murray and Kenneth D. Salomon, partners at Thompson Coburn LLP, share with us what they have observed regarding Higher Ed Act Reauthorization possibilities for 2015.  WCET is currently exploring ways to work with other organizations on policy advocacy and you will hear about a joint letter we have crafted on the proposed teacher preparation regulations and their implications soon.  Thank you Chris and Ken for sharing your insights with us.

The Higher Education Act, commonly known as the HEA, is the major law that authorizes the federal programs that support colleges and universities and their students, most significantly the federal student loan and grant programs.

US-Capital-by-Stephen-MelkisethianFirst enacted in 1965, the HEA must be renewed periodically (called “reauthorizations”) or else it expires.  In the event that Congress does not fully reauthorize the HEA, it must pass a stop-gap, temporary extension so that HEA programs and funds remain flowing.  Including the original law, there have been nine iterations of the HEA, and the upcoming reauthorization will be the tenth version of the HEA in its fifty years.

Reauthorization is generally a multi-year process that provides the opportunity for Congress to renew existing programs without change, amend them, or add new programs or requirements.  Although the prevailing view outside the Beltway is that Washington is broken and that Congress has done little to move legislation forward, we are optimistic for the chances of some sort of HEA bill moving this year.

Simply stated, consider HEA reauthorization under way. 

In the Congress that ended in December 2014, the education committees in the House and Senate made much progress in getting smaller – but still important – bills passed by their chambers and signed into law.  The passage of those smaller bills in 2014 clears the way for consideration of the two behemoths under these committees’ jurisdiction: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most recently enacted as No Child Left Behind), governing K-12, and the HEA, governing higher education.

In 2014, both committees began laying the preliminary groundwork for HEA, anticipating movement in 2015.  Most public were the committee hearings on HEA reauthorization, a typical precursor to the reauthorization of any major law.

The House passed a series of piecemeal HEA bills in 2014 that will be wrapped into a full reauthorization, largely a symbolic gesture because these bills died in the Democratically-controlled Senate.  Though symbolic, their passage, on topics like transparency and competency-based education, did send the important signal that there are areas of common ground between the parties.

In the Senate, then-Ranking Member Alexander (R-TN) convened a task force on reducing regulation in higher education, and Chairman Harkin (D-IA) introduced a draft bill in the waning days of the Congress.  Senator Harkin spent the greatest amount of time during his tenure with the gavel castigating for-profit institutions, and that posture will change vividly to a broader examination of higher education as a whole with Alexander now chair.

Two Major Changes Will Influence Reauthorization

Two major changes will influence what this Congress does in this reauthorization.  The first is the change of Senate control from the Democrats to the Republicans.  The second is the fact that three of the top four House and Senate education committee leaders are new.

Joining Chairman Alexander at the helm of the Senate education committee is Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA).  In the House, Representative Kline (R-MN) is on his last term as education committee chair, but the Committee’s longtime Democratic leader retired and has been replaced by Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA).  Senator Alexander may be the best-informed committee chairman in history on higher education, having devoted his career to education, from serving as US Secretary of Education to President of the University of Tennessee.  Both he and Kline are focused, in large part, on regulatory simplification.

Building on the initial steps taken in the last Congress, preparatory reauthorization discussions among the new committee leaders and the Administration have been going on for the past few months.  These efforts have been intended to narrow differences and identify areas of consensus, which do seem fairly numerous despite notable disputes on issues like gainful employment and the college ratings system.

Congress has two means to set aside regulations undertaken during the Obama era that they find objectionable: statutory provisions in the reauthorization bill repealing or revising them, or denying the Department funding to implement them in the Department’s annual appropriations bill.  In either case, the President could veto the legislation.  If, however, the reauthorization or appropriations bill contains enough other policies that the President wants, he may determine to sign the measure into law anyway despite some concerns.

Both chairmen have said since December that they hope to turn in earnest to the HEA by summer, once they have completed work on K-12 reauthorization, with the goal of sending an HEA reauthorization  bill to the President by year’s end.  That’s an ambitious schedule, but one that might well be achieved.

In the House, expect legislation to move quickly through the committee markup and then to the House floor for passage.  In the Senate, Chairman Alexander is looking to return to regular order to allow amendments during the committee markup and on the Senate floor, including Democrats throughout the process.  Mr. Alexander is committed to the Senate moving back to its traditional role as a deliberative body, largely absent during the tenure of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).  The result will be a complicated process on the Senate floor for amendments, but the bill will likely be more bipartisan as a result, and thus also more apt to be signed by a Democratic president.

The final step in the  process may be the most important: the conference committee.  Leaders from both chambers appoint conferees to negotiate between the two bills and hammer out a final bill.  House and Senate leaders tend to pick their A team of policy leaders, and those members then have in-depth conversations as they put the final touches on the bill.

Though the parties have disagreed on certain higher education policies over the decades, the HEA has not historically been overly partisan.  For example, the last reauthorization of the HEA occurred during the final months of the Bush Administration in August 2008 when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was Speaker.

It is far too early to know whether or not Chairmen Kline and Alexander will be able to meet their aggressive HEA reauthorization timeline.  Similarly, it is too soon to say what a final reauthorization measure will or will not include.

Will Congress Address eLearning’s Concerns?

Train-Leaving-by-Elvert-BarnesOver the last two decades, Congress made changes that impacted eLearning dramatically.   The 1992 reauthorization made distance learners eligible to receive federal financial aid for the first time.  The 1998 reauthorization created the Distance Learning Demonstration Program, and the 2006 temporary extension of the HEA eliminated the 50 Percent Rule.

If there are policy objectives that the eLearning community would like to see added to or changed in current law or regulation, both education committees are looking for concrete suggestions, including proposed statutory language.  There is time, but not too much, for the eLearning community to come together with a consolidated package of recommendations.  The train is leaving the station, and the next opportunity will be many years away.

 

Christopher T MurrayChristopher T. Murray
Partner, Thomas Coburn LLP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kenneth D SalomonKenneth D. Salomon
Partner, Thompson Coburn LLP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo Credit: US Capitol by Stephen Melkisethian  Photo Credit: Train Leaving by Elvert Barnes

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Open Educational Resources in ND: A Teacher’s Perspective

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date January 23, 2015
1 Comment on Open Educational Resources in ND: A Teacher’s Perspective
frontiers feature image logo

In a continuation of our look into the Open Educational Resources Initiative in North Dakota, today we are excited to share Teresa Tande’s, Associate Professor of English/Humanities at Lake Region State College, story of incorporating OER into her classroom.

When my university life students didn’t see a textbook to buy for the class, they were ecstatic!  Obviously, that meant no homework.  But they soon found out they were receiving a free digital book: they still had to read and they still had to do work.  So how was an open source book different from having a text or having an online text?

The Student Perspective

Lake Region State CollegeFrom the student perspective, not having to lug a book around was definitely a bonus. But not having a book to lug around also meant that sometimes, without a book staring at them from a pile, they forgot to read an assigned chapter. No doubt that is due more to student trait, not open source textbook.

The actual reading itself didn’t seem to cause any real problem for students. The book that we used was set up very nicely, with specific objectives listed before each section.  Likewise, the end of each section contained the key points and pertinent exercises with direct application to the chapter’s concepts.

Checklists before sections allowed the students to interact with the material before they even read.  Because I converted all the pdf chapters to word documents, students were able to actually type their marks or responses within the book itself, so their answers would always be there.  Sending the work in was as easy as “Copy + Paste.”

The Teacher Perspective

From the teacher perspective, not having to lug a book back and forth between school and work was definitely a bonus.  But that also meant I always needed to have access to a computer since my phone screen is still a bit too small for reading. Even though I was able to interact with the text through highlighting or making notes, reviewing those notes again meant needing a computer for retrieval, which sometimes proves to be awkward.

When I committed to my particular online book, the extent of my resources was a digital version of the text with limited pictures.  That is such a contrast from what teachers receive with  new proprietary texts.  Instructor manuals, pre-made powerpoints, text banks, and even suggested course outlines are the expected minimum resources with traditional textbooks.   No longer does a teacher have to spend hours creating visuals, typing up tests, or designing the sequence of units.  A teacher doesn’t even have to think about what to teach, but rather, what material to use.

As nice as it is to have so many readily accessible resources, lessons take on a canned quality as convenience dominates over creativity.  But in using a text stripped of all the extra packaging, I have returned to what my early years of teaching (almost 40 years ago!) were like, where I need to rely on my creativity to conjure up lessons to help my students understand.  And even though the actual process of lesson planning takes longer, I feel a deeper connection to my lesson and a greater satisfaction knowing I crafted it.  In that sense, the OER has benefitted not only the student, but also the teacher.

My students this semester know they are part of the exploration in using OERs.  In fact, the first writing students had to do in Comp II was a response to an article on OERs. Contrary to what many might believe, our digital-savvy students don’t all prefer a digital version over the physical version of a book. It will be an interesting journey this semester discovering their positions on OERs after 17 weeks.

As for me, I will continue to do what is best for the students.  Who knows?  If textbooks are too heavy and too expensive, and if OERs are too awkward and not tactile enough, maybe I will choose not to use texts at all and have students learn by doing.  Now there’s a concept!

Teresa TandeTeresa Tande
Associate Professor, English/Humanities
Lake Region State College

Tags
Categories
Practice

OER Supported by North Dakota Legislators

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date January 21, 2015
2 Comments on OER Supported by North Dakota Legislators
frontiers feature image logo

Today we have the privilege of hearing from Tanya Spilovoy, director of distance education and state authorization at the North Dakota University System, as she shares with us the journey of an open educational resource initiative that has what we all want for higher education — support from legislators. 

Folks love to talk about the soaring costs of higher education and the national student debt load. We’ve had the same concerned discussions in North Dakota. Then, we decided to do something about it. A 2013 legislative interest in increasing the use of Open Textbooks kicked off a revolutionary plan in the North Dakota University System. At that time, it was estimated that North Dakota University System students spent around $1,100 per year on textbooks. I was asked to work with a team made up of faculty, a student, technologists, and provosts to draft a white paper exploring the concept of open textbooks in response to that legislative request. The stakeholders discussed the results of the white paper along with many other important issues.

NDUS_Logo_TagAfter the white paper was complete, the project lost momentum. And, I remember thinking, “Someone needs to finish the Open Educational Resources initiative.” I waited for someone to step up and do the work. And then, I realized that the “someone” was me.

I spoke with Dr. Lisa Feldner, the Vice Chancellor for Institutional Research and Information Technology about my ideas to take Open Educational Resources from concept to reality. She said, “I think you should go for it.” And, so I did.

Over the next few months, I spent a significant amount of time researching, planning, preparing presentations, and collaborating with stakeholders across the North Dakota University System. What makes the Open Educational Resources initiative in North Dakota so unique is that it is now supported by the Council of College Faculty, the North Dakota Student Association, the State Board of Higher Education, legislators who serve on the Interim Higher Education Funding Committee at the Legislature, and the North Dakota University System. Gaining the support of so many different groups has taken time, persistence, and a passion for improving higher education.

On October 2, 2014, the State Board of Higher Education included increasing the use of Open Educational Resources in its five-year strategic plan. In addition, Governor Dalrymple’s biennial budget sets aside $220,000 for funding “open educational resources.” On January 15, 2014, House Bill 1261 was introduced, proposing the creation of a higher education open educational resources incentive grant program. The initial investment and collaboration with Dr. David Ernst, the executive director of the University of Minnesota’s Open Textbook Library, and other repositories is estimated to save North Dakota students millions of dollars in textbook costs. While the full plan to train and support faculty in developing and adopting OER has not yet been implemented, a few innovative early-adopters like Teresa Tande and Michelle Murphy at Lake Region State College and Eric Murphy at University of North Dakota, are beginning to use Open Educational Resources in their classrooms. These preliminary classrooms have produced positive results for both faculty and students.

kimberlyNDUS_OERThe Open Educational Resources initiative could have great impact for students like my friend, Kimberly Mayer-Berger. She is a single mom who recently returned to finish a degree she started years ago. She and I talk a lot about the financial and time commitments she faces by adding college to her work and parenting responsibilities. We strategize her road to graduation. Last week, Kimberly wrote a Facebook post about the high cost of her college textbooks.

While Kim’s post is sarcastic, the high cost of textbooks is no laughing matter. I know there is still a lot of work to be done in North Dakota before Open Educational Resources are commonly used in a variety of classes. The North Dakota Legislature has the final say on whether project support is appropriated – and they’re talking about it now. We’ll know at the end of the session whether Open Educational Resources funding survives.  But the possibility of lowering the cost of college attendance for students like Kimberly truly makes it all worthwhile.

Tanya SpilovoyTanya Spilovoy
Director, Distance Education & State Authorization
North Dakota University System

Tags , , ,
Categories
Practice

Connecting the Dots

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date January 14, 2015
1 Comment on Connecting the Dots
frontiers feature image logo

Today we welcome our new WCET executive director, Michael D. Abbiatti, to his first post on Frontiers.  Many of you know Mike from his years of active participation as a member of WCET.  We invite you to take a moment and read about the policy and practice challenges and opportunities he sees for WCET in 2015.

I recently attended our son’s graduation from the Texas A&M doctoral program in Pharmacy, and was treated to one of the best explanations of the unique value of our WCET policy and practice ecosystem as we enter 2015.  A Texas Legislator, and a person with a clear vision for the future, presented the graduation address. The central message of her speech was that our collective mission in today’s complex world is to “connect the dots.” Needless to say, I was expecting a simple comparison to the children’ s coloring books that required drawing logical lines between dots to reveal a “hidden” image.  The actual presentation was not only completely different, but also an inspiring treatise on the challenges we all face in the 21st Century Global Economy. The thoughts that follow are my adaptation of the “connecting the dots” theme in the context of the opportunities and challenges for WCET in 2015.

Simple and complex connect the dots cirlces
Connecting the dots today takes different shape than in the past.

The old connecting the dots games were both fun and educational. In today’s world, we are obliged to concern ourselves with connecting a completely new set of dot categories, or domains, that may be connected in an endless number of patterns. Each pattern is unique to the personality and personal goals of the individual learner, and is also directly tied to the way each of us views our relationship to those around us. WCET members have the unique opportunity to work together to resolve the puzzles for collective benefit.

As an organization , we  are presented with at least five critical “dots “ requiring connection in 2015:

  • An increasingly complex regulatory environment
  • Diverse learner communities
  • Evolving credentials
  • Cost and price containment
  • The Internet of Things phenomenon

Complex Regulatory Environment

We begin 2015 with a complex regulatory environment that includes new requirements for digital content delivery. State Authorization, Net Neutrality, data collection and reporting requirements, and new programs to support ubiquitous Internet access present a dynamic and poorly defined set of standards we must meet.

We can expect more rules as the Federal lawmakers delve deeper into higher education structure, function, and delivery methods. Therefore, our students are faced with trying to interpret this fluid policy environment in the context of their personal need and resources. A complicating fact is that learner populations are more numerous and diverse than ever.

Diverse Learner Communities

Although technology-enhanced education is not a new concept, we entered 2014 with a somewhat predictable mix between the traditional, campus-based student population and the “non-traditional”(whatever that means) off-campus learners.

In 2015, based upon the struggling economic recovery, the military drawdown, and a myriad of other life changing events, the demand for higher education is increasing significantly. Innovative experiments such as MOOCs have shown us that the chronological age and  physical location of a given learner are no longer limiting factors when it comes to accessing needed content and skills. Furthermore, leaner populations continue to differentiate into those seeking concrete paths to traditional degrees (the “typical undergraduate and postgraduate students), learners seeking time-dependent employment certifications beyond IT ( healthcare, law enforcement, etc.), individuals and groups of all ages enrolling in free courses to secure specific information or to explore content (with or without intent to complete the course(s), i.e. the MOOC model), and an evolving series of sub-populations that are not yet defined.

Evolving Credentials

Interestingly enough, the credentials being sought by today’s learner populations are being redefined as well. In addition, the New Year will see the rise and fall of higher education credentials. We will see the life cycle of the mini-degree (i.e. the popular mini-MBA), the outcome of accumulation of “badges”(the Kahn Academy, or MIT Openstudy), the three year degree program that is at least on the minds of almost every state legislature, and a host of other creative approaches to decreasing the time requirement, cost (how much funding is needed to offer the education), price (what does a student pay) of higher education in the US. Thus, cost and price come to the forefront of the discussion.

Cost and Price Containment

2015 will see a continuation of the debate over funding for higher education at multiple levels. Federal interest in cost containment will bring about a host of both intended and unintended consequences that will eventually filter through the regions, the states, the systems, and the institutions to the pocketbooks of the individual learner. Students are concerned about the rising price of obtaining a higher education credential, and the accumulating debt associated with the process.

It is said that the Gen X students (born between 1965 and 1980) still value the more “traditional” college experience, but the Millenials (born after 1980), prefer to invest in “educational experiences” versus the physical trappings of the previous college offerings. As an active WCET member, you are well aware of the costs associated with providing fully immersive and interactive digital experiences in the “classroom” where ever it may be located.  So, how do we lower price to the students and increase the value-add of the finished product? Perhaps the Internet of Things (IoT) phenomenon holds the answers to this complex question.

The Internet of Things (IoT) Phenomenon

Wearables by IntelFreePressSimply defined for the purposes of this article, The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to connecting anything and everything that can be connected to the Global Internet.  More specifically, at a recent IoT meeting in Louisville, KY we developed an operational definition of IoT as ubiquitous Internet-connected devices linking people, processes, and data. Interestingly enough, every segment of the global business community, except one, has an IoT strategy and ongoing trend analysis.

The one critical community without a clear IoT strategy in the US is Education.

Certainly we deal with Internet-related issues on a daily basis and we employ professionals who have the skills and passion to react to unintended events. However, do we have plans to deal with the costs and consequences of connecting all of the fixed and mobile devices on our campuses to the Internet? Are we prepared to absorb the costs for required infrastructure and security when we adopt the latest and greatest online teaching and learning tools for a global audience? What is the impact of leveraging OER, collaborative degrees, and high speed networks on our staff and support structures? In short, are we prepared to make good on the promises being made by IoT as those promises relate to providing access to affordable credentials?

Our students come to campus in an Internet-enabled car, carrying multiple Internet-dependent devices, expecting educational “experiences” that are both low cost and content rich. They invest in laptops, tablets, smartphones, fitbits, and will expect the latest and greatest tool in the classroom. The most important question for our WCET membership is, “Does your institution/system/state have an actionable IoT strategy?”

Connecting the Dots with WCET

So, back to connecting the dots. The “dots” of yesterday produce a predetermined image that is the same to every person who elected to pick up a pen and connect them. The result is wholly predictable. Connecting our new “dots” will produce an “image”  that is totally individual and rapidly changing.

I challenge you to contact your WCET colleagues and resources and get busy “connecting the dots”! The outcome is completely up to you as an active member of the nation’s premier technology-enhanced education policy and practice organization – WCET!

WCET is on target, on task, and leaning forward to success in 2015 !

Mike Abbiatti
Mike Abbiatti in his new office in Boulder. Photo Credit: Megan Raymond

Michael D. Abbiatti
Executive Director – WCET
Vice President for Educational Technologies – WICHE

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Uncategorized

#WCET14 Arrives in Portland & Your Desktop

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date November 19, 2014
frontiers feature image logo

WCET’ers are arriving from all over the nation in beautiful Portland, Oregon to celebrate 26 years of coming together.   This year we’re proud to present a program that brings both big picture, forward thinking ideas and practical applications that support student success.

Highlights Include:

Download the popular WCET mobile program app and start building your schedule!  iOS, Android, and web versions are available for phones and tablets.  This nifty app will allow you to track the sessions you want to get to, download the slides when presenters make them available and take notes during the sessions.  Be sure to check-in when you arrive at your sessions and use the networking functions to meet new friends and find old colleagues.

Tune in to our Award Winners

Congratulations to the 2014 WCET Outstanding Work award recipients who will receive their awards on Thursday during our Awards Lunch:

  • Capella University: FlexPathwowLogo2014
  • Colorado Technical University: intellipath™ for MBA preparation
  • Excelsior College: Online Writing Lab (OWL)
  • Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) Extended Learning Institute:NOVA’s OER-Based Associate Degree Project
  • University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: U-Pace

Stay tuned to learn who receives the 2014 Richard Jonsen Award, which will also be announced during the Awards lunch.

Connect with WCET

Unable to Join us In Portland?

Photo of Cali MorrisonCali Morrison
Communications Manager
WCET

 

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Exploring Portland at #WCET14

Post author By WCET Frontiers
Post date November 18, 2014
1 Comment on Exploring Portland at #WCET14
frontiers feature image logo

November 18, 2014

Another Portlandite, Jim Friscia, gives us a look into the fun Portland has to offer to compliment the learning at #WCET14.  Who knows, perhaps the next big thing in e-learning will come from a walk in the Japanese Garden, a conversation over a pint at Deschutes Brewery, or an inspirational sugar high at Voodoo Donuts.

In September, Loraine Schmitt of Portland Community College wrote an excellent post about Portland, the site of WCET’s annual meeting this week. It is chock full of great recommendation of places to eat, drink, shop, and relax. As another long-time resident and promoter of our beautiful city, I can’t help but chime in with some additional ideas for exploring in your free time. (BTW, I do hope some of you are planning to arrive early or stay through the weekend.)

Pioneer by CamKnows
Signs on Pioneer Square by CamKnows

Though you’ll be staying downtown, Portland is a city of neighborhoods, each with its distinct personality and options for exploring. Loraine mentioned the Pearl District and NW 23rd Avenue, but easy public transit options can take you to the Hawthorne District and nearby Division Street on the east side of the river. Division Street has recently become the hottest restaurant destination in our very foodie town. Or, head northeast to the Alberta Arts District and north to Boise-Eliot/Historic Mississippi Avenue, two of the hippest neighborhoods in the city (though you might be interested in learning more about Portland’s gentrification history that affected both of these areas).

We have amazing opportunities to walk, run, and hike in the city. If you’re a morning (or anytime) walker or runner, from the Marriott just cross the street and head north along Waterfront Park to the Steel Bridge. Cross the bridge and head south along the river’s Eastbank Esplanade path, crossing back to downtown on the Hawthorne Bridge. Another easy walk from the hotel is to head south along Waterfront Park and into the South Waterfront neighborhood. Here’s a link to more fabulous walks around the city. And, of course, we are a city of bridges that are fascinating to explore.

Speaking of walks, there are opportunities to join guided group walks that provide perspectives on Portland architecture, culture, and history. Here are two – one of downtown architecture on Friday afternoon, and of Portland’s Old Town/Chinatown district on Saturday morning.

japanese garden michael matti
Japanese Garden by Michael Matti

Are you a hiker? There are over 70 miles of trails in Portland’s Forest Park. This is a jewel of a wild urban park in Northwest Portland that you can easily get to via public transportation. Connected to Forest Park just to the west of downtown is Washington Park, where you can find the Oregon Zoo, the International Rose Test Garden, and the Japanese Garden. The Portland Japanese Garden is one of the most authentic outside of Japan, and the fall colors are beautiful.

Like to explore museums? Just a short walk from the hotel you can find the Portland Art Museum, the Oregon Historical Society, and OMSI (across the river from the hotel).

Enjoy heading out to live music? Portland has a wealth of options and if you want some recommendations, ask me or check out my occasional blog, Jim’s Music Notes.

There are so many tasty places to eat in Portland, from cheap to very expensive, and in virtually every neighborhood. To sort out many of the mindboggling choices, check out the Willamette Week’s current guide to the best restaurants in town. Both Urbanspoon and Yelp also have pages devoted to great places to eat, too. Have a favorite Portland chef? We currently have six James Beard award-winners and a host of notable nominees with restaurants in Portland. You can spend weeks eating here!

And if you’d like to know more about what has shaped the current state of the Portland and why young people “come here to retire,” check out this episode of public radio’s State of the Re:Union.

See you in Portland!

webJFrisciaJim Friscia
Director of Online Education & Learning Technologies
University of Western States
Integrating Health and Science

Tags