The two day summit kicked off with an orientation to the learning analytics ecosystem by two well known experts – Linda Baer, Minnesota State University – Mankato and Don Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc.  Key takeaways from the morning session include:

• We have more data than we know what to do with, but not enough analysts to figure out what we do with it.
• The majority of the attendees are looking to accelerate their analytics development but many were just getting started.
• Before launching an analytics initiative, institutions need to complete a readiness assessment. A three stage model was shared:
  • Stage I – Getting Started
    • Raise the analytics IQ of leaders, faculty, and staff.
  • Stage II – Accelerating Development
    • Create an action Plan for Analytics.
    • Be sure to identify “quick wins” and “low hanging fruit” – it will help demonstrate the behavior you want people to display.
  • Stage III – Creating Transformative Strategies for Leveraging Analytics
    • Create a ‘single point of truth’ – having the team argue over whether the data is correct or not is counterproductive.
    • Need to differentiate the units of analysis and between real-time and leadership-based data.
      • Who needs the data?
      • What kind of report do they need?
      • How often do they need it?
      • At what level of granularity do they need it?
• You can’t wait for a plan before taking action.  You need to learn from doing.  MOOCs show that we may be in a “Shoot, Ready, Aim” culture now – we have to continue moving forward: audit, measure, plan and act all at the same time.

For more, be sure to check out the slides and handouts from Linda & Don’s orientation to analytics.

Day 1

Data Change Everything

Ellen Wagner, WCET Executive Director, welcomed the group with the story of the Damoclean Sword and its analogous nature to how analytics function in across all market sectors today.  She illustrated this point with the example of Marissa Mayer made the decision to end telecommuting at Yahoo – by analyzing the data from the VPN logs to determine the level of productivity.  Mayer took much heat in the popular press for her decision, but rarely was it acknowledged that her decision was based upon data that showed workers that were under-performing from home.

Featured speaker, Chris Bustamante, President of Rio Salado College, shared how the nation’s largest public online community college, with more than 41,000 online students, uses data to track success, assess the situation, and make changes to improve retention to help more students reach achievement goals.   Key takeaways:

• In the systems you build, only include variables that are actionable student behavior – we can’t change a student’s gender or race.
• Providing a student with the right intervention at the time when it is needed can be the difference in student success.
• With the Rio Salado system, they can show that students logging into the course by the second day have a 20% changes of succeeding. By the eight day of the course, their system can predict a student’s outcome with 70% accuracy.
• Lack of engagement is both a student AND a course design issue.
• Now is the time to learn from others – leverage their experience and expertise.

Big Data, Big Changes

Next up, Catherine Kelley, Fairleigh Dickinson University, lead a discussion by Linda Baer, Minnesota State University – Mankato, Brett Dennis, Blackboard, Inc.  and Peter Smith, Kaplan Higher Education on how big data play into the realms of accountability, capacity building, and performance-based funding.

Key takeaways:

• MN created a Dashboard related to performance-based funding, as a requirement of the board.  The Dashboard displays performance indicators of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system and its member colleges on selected key measures.
• Peter Smith quoted Mark Twain – “If they are going to run you out of town anyway – get in front and make it look like a parade,” as an analogy of where higher education is today.  Data will be the tool that helps us make the necessary changes.
• Big data is driving a new “mother of all mashups” in which the ecosystems of students are considered.  The tool being developed by Kaplan Higher Education will compare a student’s acquired skills against their desired job and its related skills.  Then they’ll be provided with a gap analysis and options on how to gain the skills they are missing:
  • The tool will point students to both free and non-free resources for gaining the skills they need to fill their specific gaps for job attainment.
  • We are moving into an era of “pull” rather than “push” learning – resource: John Seeley Brown The Power of Pull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion.

Cathy Kelley closed this session with wise words, “Be afraid. Be excited.”

Analytical Capacity Building for Institutions

This discussion was led by Don Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc.

Key Takeaways:

• For institutions that want to move forward, where do we find the talent, the analytics expertise?  How do we get this done?    Some initial suggestions:
  • Grow your own talent.  However, be cognizant that even entry level people with big data analytics capability are prime for recruitment by the private sector.
  • Consider “in-sourcing.”   Bring in industry people to work with your team to develop a cadre of personnel with analytics expertise.  Then consider offering their talent as a shared service.   Think about creating an “analytics utility.”
  • WCET was encouraged to consider doing a boot camp to train institutional teams.
  • Faculty will be resistant to any additional workload requirements to enter student course activity or other data.  How address the workload issue?  The data, the measurements have to be embedded in existing systems so no extra work is required.  It has to be automatic.
  • In response to a concern about faculty academic freedom, these data analytics strategies also work for traditional/hybrid classes.   Rather than capturing the student data within the class, consider all the student activity outside of class….student logins into chat, data from e-text usage, etc.  Faculty will not be intimidated by the collection of data of student activity outside the classroom.
  • What’s the pitch that will resonate with legislators?  Big data will enhance institutional ability to improve student performance and control student costs.

Creating a Culture of Retention and Persistence – Now that we know, what do we do?

This breakout was led by Matt Pistilli, Purdue University and focused on a shift in culture – from a culture of persistence and retention to a student success culture – noting that by getting to student success, you will beget retention and persistence.

Key Takeaways:

• Within the first ten days of class, combining assignments turned in and attendance, we can predict a student’s outcome while accounting for 70% of the variance.
• Student success is not one person’s job – it’s everyone’s job.
• Institutions need to focus on risk behaviors for all students not ‘at risk’ students.
• What data is important is relative to the situation.
• There are many questions that are raised about the “ethics” of big data.  Matt referenced an EDUCAUSE article that he co-wrote.

Developing a Data Strategy

This session was led by Alan Drimmer, Apollo Group, and shared the strategies Apollo and its’ institutions use to harness data for student success.

Key Takeaways:

• Data is everywhere.  Strategy may be THE most important thing a school does to innovate.
  • There is no magic formula for using data, because the issues are complex and every school is different.  That does not mean you can’t learn from others’ experience, but data strategy is not a one-size-fits-all situation.
  • Learning games are a use of big data – the game reacts with challenges based on your and other player’s data to customize the experience.
  • In regard to gaining faculty buy-in for data strategy, don’t go to faculty with a blank sheet – bring them some initial trend data, highlight the outliers and see what questions they ask.
  • Focus on something that is important AND something for which you can get the data.
  • Assembling the right team is key.  Otherwise you will experience GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
  • There is no silver bullet for influencing human behavior.

Summary of Day 1

Ellen Wagner brought the group together and asked all to share their key takeaways from the day:

• There is no such thing as ‘sort of transparent.’ Once our data are out there, we’ll be accountable.
• We should think about not only how to tell the story of the successes, but alongside that outline the critical organizational changes that moved the power levers to obtain those successes.
• Concerned about the hype.  The processes have to be in control and carefully outlines so we don’t blow up one process for another.

Day 2

Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework: Academic Risk Identification

Beth Davis, PAR Framework Director, introduced the PAR Framework and its goals, while PAR data scientist, Jeff Grant shared what the tools being developed can do, and Luzelma Canales, Lone Star Community College System, shared the experience of an institution participating in PAR.

Key Takeaways:

• PAR is a “big data” analysis effort to identify drivers related to loss and momentum. It informs student loss prevention.
• WCET member institutions voluntarily contribute de-identified student records to a single federated database.
• Common Data Definitions are at the foundation of reusable predictive models and meaningful comparisons and are shared openly via the DataCookbook by IData, Inc.
  • In a Campus Technology article which interviewed Russ Little, Sinclair Community College, these data definitions were coined the Rosetta Stone of Student Success Data.
  • The PAR presentation contained several references to the film “The Graduate”:
    • Analytics are the new plastics.
    • PAR helps institutions solve the “now what?” problem
  • Lone Star Community College System has been able to use the data in their PAR dashboard to work with K-12 and legislators to pinpoint which districts need to better align their math curriculum.  Using these data, they can talk to policy makers about how to close the gaps on STEM.
  • The PAR dashboard allows institutions to see the pass rates in a class for factors such as ‘credit ratio’, GPA, number of withdrawls, gender, receipt of pell grant or not, or ethnicity.  It also allows institutions to look at, for instance, the permanent residence location by major, race and ethnicity, home campus, or gender.  By knowing the issues behind each campus through looking at the data, we can better understand how to move policy and practice.
    • It was noted that the PAR team does not know who the students are, but institutions can know who their own students are.

PAR Framework: Student Success Matrix

In this session, Peter Shea, SUNY; Karen Swan, University of Illinois – Springfiled; Mindy Sloan, Ashford University; and Sandy Daston, PAR outlined the basis for development of a student success matrix.

Key Takeaways:

• We need new models that are explicit to the type of student we are trying to assist.
• Retention is an institutional goal to keep students enrolled to completion.  Persistence is an individual’s goal of working to achieve personal educational desire.
  • Persistence is a recipe for success, but too many institutional barriers and a persistent student will go elsewhere.
  • The PAR Student Success Matrix predictor categories are based on three inputs – literature review,  partner experiences, and predictive models.
  • PAR Student Success Matrix is defined by four periods – connection, entry, progress, and completion – based off the Completion by Design work and can be applied across a student lifecycle or across a course lifecycle.
  • 22% of the interventions reported to date are related to learner characteristics, which are harder for institutions to change.
  • Mindy Sloan noted that when Ashford University completed the Student Success Matrix, they found they were putting a lot of resources into the first few weeks, which showed their resource allocation was in-line with their mission.
  • Karen Swan noted that the data tells you what, but it does not tell you why.  You have to implement the interventions and then figure out why.
  • Collaboration is the key to making this work and keeping it viable.  There will be opportunities in the future for others to support and join in the work.
  • Knowledge isn’t a strategic resource like a pile of money.  Sharing makes you and the knowledge stronger.
  • Don’t forget, the data are descriptions of living, breathing students, human beings who we are working to help succeed.

Student Success by the Numbers

In this session we learned about several of the commercial products which help institutions explore student success. The panel was moderated by David Leasure, Western Governors University and included Mac Adkins, Smarter Services; Deb Everhart, Blackboard, Inc.; and David Yaskin, Starfish.

Key Takeaways:

• The impacts of college are transgenerational.  Lack of success begets the same.  Success transforms families for generations.
• SmarterMeasure and SmarterSurveys help institutions model student success by using noncognitive variables including internal (attributes, learning styles), external  (life factors), and technical/computer skills.
• Data visualization helps turn numbers into action.  We need to move away from post-mortem grades to realtime indicators, to move the bar on student success.
• Blackboard Learn’s Retention Center puts tools in students hands to see how their activity and grades compare with other students in the same course.  It also provides instructors with a breakdown of their own activity engaging in the online portion of the course.
• Employing a student success platform does not mean students are succeeding, it means you want to engage more.
• Closing the loop is hard.  If you recommend a student do something to improve, determine a way to track if the recommendation was followed.
• Starfish Retention Solutions enlists the whole institutional community to participate in student success by connecting across the institution, not just within one segment.

Extreme Data

Phil Ice, APUS and Megan Stewart, Clickstream Learning, opened  a look into the future of data analytics as we continually move forward beyond what is known today.

Key Takeaways:

• Explosive growth:
  • In 2012 there were 2.4 Billion internet users, with an 8% year to year growth.
  • Between 12/08 and 5/13 mobile device access of the web grew from 0.9% to 15%.
  • In one minute, 204 Million email messages are sent. Every minute of every hour of every day.
  • Higher Education accounts for 10-20% of all internet traffic and the amount of data being created is staggering.
  • Extreme Data = Extreme Integration + Extreme Stress.  Between terabytes and petaflops of data are being created on our campuses almost daily.
  • There is a fundamental shift from structured data (about 5% of data) to unstructured data (about 95% of data) in our work.
  • Data collection and analysis are tied to learner behaviors. Behaviors are actions. The goal is to determine the data that can help us inform behaviors and change them for the better.
  • Ellen Wagner shared an analogy for very inexpensive software licenses – they are much like the almost free puppy – the costs come in for keeping everything healthy and running.

It’s About the Students!

Vernon Smith, Portmont College at Mount St. Mary’s, brought the Summit back around full circle, reminding us that all of the work we do is about one thing – the students.

Key Takeaways:

• The sword of data is double-edged.  Supports the quantified self and adaptive learning.  Data can also border on the line of creepy due to our (and our students) level of comfort with sharing our data.
• The student model for Portmont College at Mount St. Mary’s is students with grit, who only have a 10^th grade reading/math level but have motivation to learn.
• Instead of placement exams, Portmont diagnoses students to find the best fit. Then combining  in-person bootcamp with cohorts, to prep students for fully online courses.
  • Focus on building noncognitive skills along with academics to increase success.
  • Portmont College focusing on four degrees and providing with them measures of employment-ready competencies, which it makes visible to employers in a ‘double-click’ transcript, to give a 3-D view of the student.

Wrap Up

Perhaps it was best said by attendee, Darcy Hardy on twitter – “Head now officially exploding – in a good way. #wcetsummit13.” A lot of learning was packed into two short days.  We welcome you to continue the conversation here and through our social media.  In the coming days, you will find resources available on the Summit page at WCET  – http://wcet.wiche.edu/connect/2013-data-summit.

Thank you to all who attended and to our sponsors who helped make the conversations possible.

Cali

Cali Morrison
WCET, Manager, Communications
cmorrison@wiche.edu
Support our work.  Join WCET.

Sword Image by Stu Mayhew on Flickr.

Most notable to the postsecondary distance education community was the renewed interest in the state authorization for distance education regulation.  It is my suspicion that they would not have raised this issue if they did not see this as the first step in reinstating the federal regulations that had been vacated by the federal courts in the last few years. 

Also of note is the Department’s renewed interest in solving the financial aid fraud for distance education problem.  This is big money and a serious issue.  The other items that they listed for consideration included:  cash management of federal financial aid funds, state authorization for foreign locations of institutions located in a state, clock-to-credit hour conversion, gainful employment, and changes from the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Russ Poulin delivering testimony to the U.S. Department of Education’s Negotiated Rulemaking Hearing on May 30.

David Longanecker, president of WICHE, and I provided testimony at the Department’s hearing held in San Francisco, CA on May 30.  Dr. Longanecker focused solely on the history of and the role that the regional higher education compacts are playing in the creation of the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement.  I focused on fraud, state authorization for distance education, and state authorization for foreign locations.  I also gave an overall philosophy about distance education regulation that I hope will help them to think differently in a changing world.

Thank you to all of you who provided thoughts and comments.  They were most appreciated and very helpful. Below is my testimony.  We will continue to follow any further developments.

May 30, 2013

Wendy Macais
U.S. Department of Education
1990 K Street, NW, Room 8017
Washington, DC  20006

Dear Ms. Macais:

WCET, the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies[1] submits the following comments in response to the U.S. Department of Education’s announcement posted[2] in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013 on its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee.  Our comments will be limited to the following topics that were announced as being under consideration for action by the proposed negotiated rulemaking committee:

• “…proposed regulations designed to prevent fraud and otherwise ensure proper use of Title IV, HEA program funds, especially within the context of current technologies” as previously announced in a notice issued by the Department in May of 2012[3].
• “State authorization for programs offered through distance education or correspondence education.”
• “State authorization for foreign locations of institutions located in a State.”

WCET’s mission is to accelerate the adoption of effective practices and policies, advancing excellence in technology-enhanced teaching and learning in higher education.  Our members (institutions, state agencies, multi-institution consortia, non-profit organizations, and corporations) come from throughout the United States.  WCET operates as a unit of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education[4], which is a non-profit, Congressional compact of 15 western states.

Move Regulations from Input to Outcomes Measures

There has been considerable attention by members of Congress, their staffs, and U.S. Department of Education on the developments in distance learning across colleges and universities of all types.  Given the growth in this type of learning, such scrutiny is to be expected.  In creating regulations, there is a tendency to bifurcate programs, courses, and students into two categories: “distance education” and “traditional.”  Such a dichotomy no longer fits the educational reality.   Faculty increasingly use technologies in “traditional” classes and classes of all types.  There are changes in the amount of face-to-face time between faculty and students as courses become “blended” or “flipped.”

Instead of a bifurcation based on “distance” vs. “traditional,” we now have a rich array of combinations and options of how much technology is used in a course and how much face-to-face instruction occurs.  Similarly, students can choose to be “distance” one term, “traditional” the next, and mixed the following term.

WCET suggests a new policy framework regarding regulating distance education and educational technologies:

Regulations should not differentiate by mode of instruction unless the regulations are actually about the tools used in the mode of instruction.

For example, it makes sense to regulate as to whether technologies are accessible or not.  It does not make sense to make financial aid distinctions based upon on how the student receives instruction.

Stop worrying about the inputs.  The Department’s current definition of “distance education[5]” includes many technologies.  Given the rapid change in technologies, any such list is out-of-date as soon as it is published. We applaud the move to outcomes and competency-based measures as a replacement for measures based upon mode of instruction.

Preventing Fraud in Distance Education Programs

in September 2011, the Office of Inspector General issued an Investigative Program Advisory Report on Distance Education Fraud Rings[6]. In October 2011, the U.S. Department of Education released a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter as an “Urgent Call to Action” on “Fraud in Postsecondary Distance Education Programs.”  In May 2012, the Department issued an announcement of an intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee[7] with the intent of “considering suggestions for regulatory changes to further help institutions combat fraud and protect students and taxpayers from fraudulent activity.”  The work begun with the May 2012 announcement now continues through the current process.

WCET and its membership stand firmly behind the Department of Education in combating fraud in distance education programs.  We offer suggestions on specific details of this work.

Promote Education on Combating Fraud for Staff and Faculty

Preventing fraud often falls to a limited number of financial aid and instructional technology staff. While they bear the bulk of the burden, it is often the faculty or other student service personnel who first note anomalies in “student” behavior.  Their input would be helpful in creating campus “early warning” systems.  WCET encourages the Department to work with distance education organizations to continue in identifying best practices in identifying fraudulent activity and disseminating those practices to key personnel.  WCET is interested in assisting with broader educational outreach to raise awareness of methods to prevent fraud.

Do Not Differentiate Cost-of-Attendance by Mode of Instruction

The Office of Inspector General’s report states: “Since 2001, OIG raised concerns about the cost-of-attendance calculation for distance education students because an allowance for room and board does not seem appropriate to these programs, which are largely designed for working adults.”  Subsequently, a budget proposal from the Administration included a proviso to eliminate “room and board” and “miscellaneous” expenses from the Pell Grant cost-of-attendance calculations for distance students.

WCET strongly objects to this recommendation.  The result would be to punish the innocent.

While many distance students are working adults, many are traditional age students.  Adults might quit their jobs or reduce their workload to enroll in an online program. Commuter students often fit the same “working adult” profile, yet they would maintain eligibility for these same costs.  Imagine twins living in the  same house, both taking a full load.  If one twin took all his courses online, he would have a reduced cost-of-attendance.  If his twin brother took the same classes, but took one one-credit course face-to-face, that second twin brother would receive credit for room, board, commuting, and computer costs.  This is simply inequitable and would have the greatest impact on those with the highest need.  If the concern is about “working adults” making too much money to be eligible for Pell, then base the criteria on those considerations regardless of how the student receives instruction.

Don’t Confuse Financial Aid Fraud and Academic Integrity

Fraud is the action of someone (usually in a fraud ring) using fake, appropriated, or conspirators’ identities to deceive an institution for financial gain.  Academic integrity is an act by a student (whose identity is known) to obtain a better grade.  Fraud is a criminal act and many of the preventive measures are upfront.  Academic integrity is a violation of policy and requires on-going vigilance throughout a course.

WCET worked with the University of Texas TeleCampus and the Instructional Technologies Council to create the “Best Practice Strategies to Promote Academic Integrity in Online Education[8].”  This week we published an “Academic Integrity Self-Check[9]” to help institutions work with faculty in curtailing cheating.  WCET continues to have an active workgroup focused on academic integrity.  Beyond proctoring and technical solutions, WCET’s recommendations include many that focus on instruction, including:  improved assessment techniques, group assignments, and frequent interaction.

While financial aid fraud and academic integrity have some similarities, be wary of one-size-fits-all solutions.  High barriers for proving a student’s identity in applying for aid may be appropriate, but could have a chilling effect if the student has to repeat it for each interaction within a course.

WCET Supports EDUCAUSE’s Recommendations on Technical Strategies to Combat Fraud

Subsequent to the May 2012 announcement on the Department’s intent to create a negotiated rulemaking committee, comments were accepted on proposed methods to address financial fraud for distance programs.  EDUCAUSE submitted comments addressing[10] the technical strategies issued in the Office of Inspector General’s report.  WCET supports their comments as still being relevant.

EDUCAUSE suggests that tracking IP and email addresses may “assist in the identification of technologically unsophisticated fraud rings; however, those engaged in financial aid fraud in relation to distance education  programs are likely to progress rapidly to the use of proxy servers and dummy e-mail accounts…”  They also cite the cost and administrative burdens. WCET also suspects that many students already legitimately use multiple email and IP addresses and that “noise” will increase the analysis required to identify those in fraud rings.

EDUCAUSE also cites the difficulties in requiring distance students to physically appear as part of the admissions process.  We concur that such a requirement would add a substantial burden to students and institutions.

As an alternative, EDUCAUSE suggests exploring its CommIT project[11], which “would enable students to navigate the myriad of systems and service providers potentially involved in applying for admissions and financial aid using only a single set of credentials. More importantly from the perspective of this discussion, it would extend such credentials on the basis of identity assurance on par with that of the financial services industry.”

State Authorization for Distance Education

In October 2010, the U.S. Department of Education issued regulation § 600.9(c)[12] requiring institutions to “meet any State requirements for it to be legally offering distance or correspondence education in that State.”  Since that time, WCET has been active in educating institutional personnel on both the federal and state regulations.  WCET’s State Authorization Network[13] is a service that connects institutions so that they are sharing knowledge about obtaining authorization and tracking compliance.

Allow Time for Compliance

Even though institutions are supposed to be following state laws and are supposed to be seeking compliance, relatively few institutions have all the approvals that are required.  WCET conducted a survey earlier this year[14] in partnership with the University Professional Continuing Education Association and the Sloan Consortium on institutional progress toward compliance.  Of the 206 respondents:

• 15% have all the approvals required.
• 52% have applied to one or more states.
• 33% have yet to gain approval in even one other state.

This demonstrates progress over our previous compliance survey from 2011.  In that survey, 67% of responding institutions did not have approval in any state.

Additionally, states are not ready to handle another onslaught of applications.  Processes in some states take a year or longer.  With budget constraints, compliance staffs have been cut in some states.

Institutions may need at least two years to be in full compliance.  A reissue of the “good faith” effort benchmarks would be useful.  More specificity in the wording of the “good faith” effort would be needed to encourage institutions to progress through the effort levels. The last set of “good faith” criteria allowed institutions to interpret that they need take only the first step to be in compliance.

Provide Clear Guidance on Outstanding Authorization Issues, Especially the 50% Definition

If you wish institutions to comply quickly, detailed guidance will be essential, especially in the Department’s apparent expectation to assure compliance only if a student receives 50% of a program in another state.  While every permutation cannot be anticipated, guidelines on what will be counted as “at a distance” would be helpful.  This includes indications of how blended courses, internships, and joint degree programs would be counted.

It might be easier to forego the 50% definition and use each state’s criterion as the federal requirement.  Otherwise, an institution might be obligated to be approved according to state regulations, but not for federal purposes.  It is already difficult enough having more than fifty state definitions without also having to determine the a 50% level for each state, especially if the activity in the state might push an institution above or below that threshold from term-to-term.  Having an authorization definition that differs from the states will be confusing to institutional personnel and students.  It will also alienate those charged with enforcing state regulations.

Support the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement

Beginning with the original guidance accompanying the issuance of § 600.9(c)[15] the Department has strongly supported reciprocity as a means towards compliance.  Since that language (and the subsequent guidance) was vacated, the Department should restate its support for a reciprocal agreement.  WCET strongly supports WICHE’s leadership in implementing the State Authorizaiton Reciprocity Agreement.

State Authorization for Foreign Locations of Institutions Located in a State

Other than appearing as part of the announcement for the new negotiated rulemaking effort, there has been little said about the concerns that the Department has about this issue. WCET was able to confirm that “foreign” refers to locations in other countries.  WCET members have these questions:

• Will any provision arising from this discussion apply to distance education in foreign locations?
• Does this apply only to students who are eligible for federal financial aid?

In Conclusion

WCET has a long history of working on federal policy issues.  Recently, we have also begun partnering with other educational technology and continuing education organizations in sharing policy perspectives. Some of the issues that arose from the original state authorization regulation had to do with those composing the regulation not fully comprehending the state of the art in distance education.  WCET would be happy to serve as a resource and to work with its partner organizations (several of which are named in this document) in helping to craft forward-looking regulations.

Sincerely,

Russell Poulin
Deputy Director, Research & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
303-541-0305

If I ask ten people to define predictive analytics and how it is used on their respective campuses to improve student outcomes, I am likely to hear stories about how colleges are using their data systems to provide access to decision makers. Some may go on to describe the tools that they use to provide access to data to faculty, staff, and administers. Most often, however, the definition or stories are dependent on where colleges are in their journey on building a robust and rigorous culture of evidence to improve student outcomes.

Maya Angelou once said, “Wouldn’t take nothing for my journey now.” This quote got me to think about the journey that I’ve been on not only with the two colleges where I work but also the Achieving the Dream colleges that I provide technical assistance to as a data coach.

Shifting Our Thinking about Which Numbers to Track

As I reflect on the last seventeen years and how the use of data has evolved at community colleges, I think back to the early 1990s when our primary focus of data discussions was based on enrollment numbers. All of our questions where centered on whether we had sufficient sections to meet our enrollment targets. These discussions became even more critical during planning for a “base year,” which drives the funding formula for community colleges in Texas.

However in the late 1990s early 2000s, we began to hear more public criticism about graduation rates at community colleges and the push to move into performance based funding. It was during this time that I remember the dialogue at my college shifting to include more serious discussions about key student outcomes.

Nurturing an Analytical Culture

Achieving the Dream (ATD) hit our college at a time when we were ready to take our journey to the next level. When ATD announced that it would award a small grant to community colleges that committed to rethink their approach to student success by building a culture of evidence and engagement to improve student outcomes, my college jumped at the opportunity and was selected as one of the first twenty-seven colleges invited to participate in 2004. I believe that ATD gave us the framework that we needed to make the full transition from an access/enrollment driven college to a college maintaining its commitment to access while focusing on student success through a rigorous review of policies and practices.

It was during the planning year that I saw a total transformation in not only the data we requested but also the shift in how the data was collected, analyzed, presented, and discussed. For the first time, I saw institutional researchers emerge as leaders in building a student success agenda based on a basic form of analytics. Instead of walking into meetings with reports of raw data, institutional researchers brought forth synthesized reports with some analysis. I knew that we were moving in the right direction when our questions changed from how many to what impact.

A few years later (2011) we also had an opportunity participate in the planning year of Completion by Design, an initiative funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Completion by Design introduced our college to the Preventing Loss, Creating Momentum Framework. This framework asked colleges to identify the critical points where we were losing students and to develop strategies to improve student outcomes by understanding student progression from Connection to Entry to Progress to Completion. This framework forces us to once again reconsider the data we were reviewing and the questions we were asking.

During our participation in Completion by Design, Jenkins and Cho (2012) introduced us to a method that community colleges can utilize to understand student progress and outcomes by analyzing student course-taking behaviors to determine when students enter a program of study. In this report, “Get with the program: Accelerating community colleges students’ entry into and completion of programs of study,” Jenkins and Cho proposed that identifying clusters of three credit bearing courses that lead to a program of study can assist colleges in redirecting support services to students as they make progress in entering and completing a program of study. They suggest that student course-taking behaviors a greater predictor of progress into a program of study than declaring a major or intent.

PAR Framework Takes Us to Deeper Understanding

It is only at this stage of the journey that I believe that we can take full advantage of the Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework. This framework takes our understanding of the student experience to much deeper level. Helping us understand where we are most at risk of losing our students gives us an opportunity to take a critical look at how our policies and practices are supporting or hindering student success. More importantly the PAR Framework gives our colleges an opportunity to place the data at the hands of those who can make the most difference in student success, our faculty and staff. The Lone Star College System joined the PAR Framework in the summer of 2012 as an institutional partner. Early participation in the PAR Framework is giving our college the opportunity to accelerate our capacity to leverage predictive analytics in a meaningful way that maximizes the use of our limited resources.

Take some time to reflect on your college’s journey in using data to understand the student experience at your respective colleges and remember that sustainable change takes time. You have to know where you are starting to develop the roadmap to where you want to get.

Luzelma G. Canales, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Resource Development & Administration

Lone Star College System

5000 Research Forest Drive

The Woodlands, TX 77381-4356

Email: Luzelma.Canales@lonestar.edu

For me, joining the military and eventually taking online classes were a means to an end.

My brother-in-law was a captain in the U.S. Air Force, and I talked with him about joining. He knew that I wanted to travel, get my education, and sharpen my skills in information management, so he showed me around the local Air Force base and discussed the advantages with me.

After retiring from the Air Force, Gregory Barber started a club to help other UMUC veterans

I decided to join, and apparently it was meant to be, because I stayed for 20 years. I retired with experience as a computer network defense operations manager, computer network defense network information analyst, information systems security officer, and network administrator.

Online education fit my needs, even if deployed
Online education fit with the life I chose. I had already taken some courses from community colleges near where I was stationed, and eventually I completed two associate’s degrees from the Community College of the Air Force.

I knew I wanted to continue my studies, and I researched several different institutions. I found that UMUC met my requirements—it was an accredited university, veteran friendly, offered easy access, and the tuition was affordable.

I decided to study online for two reasons. First, I wanted to try a different mode of instruction, and second, I was looking for a way to continue my education even if I was deployed.

The VeteransSuccess Club at UMUC
Based on my experience, I started the VeteransSuccess Club to offer UMUC students additional support services both online and face-to-face. The VeteransSuccess Club serves UMUC student veterans, active duty service-members, reservists, and their families.  It is a relaxed environment where members can come and discuss their concerns, from military transition, employment opportunities, benefits, or to just have a conversation about what’s on their mind.

Along with many other student veterans here at UMUC, we created this club to provide support to the student veteran in overcoming those obstacles that might hinder their personal experience during their educational journey. We know that the club can be an essential component for student veterans at UMUC but we must have participation. Our desire is for more student veterans to get involved in the club and make their presence known.

Online learning gave me needed flexibility, but it’s not easier
To be honest, I thought online education would be easier than face-to-face instruction, and I thought the courses wouldn’t take much time to complete. I was wrong on both counts. For me, online courses were often more challenging than face-to-face, requiring that I arrange study time throughout the week in order to complete the required assignments.

Flexibility was by far the greatest advantage to studying online. I didn’t have to rearrange my schedule in order to make it to class; I could just go online whenever I had free time. A corresponding challenge, though, was that I was sometimes inclined to put off homework and wait to complete assignments until the last minute.

Group assignments could be challenging, as well, if a group member was tardy with his or her contributions. In a face-to-face classroom, you can just approach the person in class; online, you often have to resort to e-mail . . . then wait for a response.

I’ll never forget when, in an MBA courses, one student was assigned a segment of a project. The due date came and went without the student turning in the assignment or contacting other team members. As the project lead, I e-mailed the student repeatedly with no response. Ultimately, the instructor had to assist my team with a resolution.

Those challenges aside, there is no question that online education was an important factor in allowing me to earn both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees, offering access to the curriculum I needed when I simply wouldn’t have been able to attend those classes face-to-face.

Advice to someone starting to learn online
To someone who is beginning online studies, I always recommend starting one course at a time. That allows time to get comfortable with the learning management system, to get used to locating and communicating with professors and classmates in the online environment, and to get familiar with the requirements of the course and the professor’s expectations.

I’ll always remember the first online course that I enrolled in at UMUC. I logged in expecting to read a couple of articles, perhaps complete a one-page paper, and be done for the week. I was in for a rude awakening. Besides articles and several assigned chapters in the textbook, there were conference questions from the instructor and comments from classmates that I had to respond to, in addition to completing a two-page paper. I realized that this would not be the online course I anticipated.

Once you’re comfortable in the online environment, though, success comes down to time management. As an online student, it’s your responsibility to know when assignments are due; how to post comments, links, or documents in online discussions; and where to post them. Since most online students are adults with competing responsibilities, those are the sorts of obstacles that can become insurmountable if left until the last minute. Plan ahead and keep up with assignments, and you’ll do fine.

Thank you,
Gregory Barber

About Gregory Barber:

MILITARY BACKGROUND
Service Branch: United States Air Force
Years of Service: 20 years

AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Information Systems Security Officer (ISSO)
Information Systems Security Engineer
Computer Network Defense (CND) Operations Manager

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Cybersecurity Policy, University of Maryland University College (UMUC), Adelphi, MD, Expected date of graduation: 4/14
Master of Business Administration (MBA), UMUC, Adelphi, MD, GPA 3.0, 08/2012
UMUC Certificate, Project Management for IT Professionals, UMUC, Adelphi, MD, 05/2008
Bachelor of Science, Information Systems Management, UMUC, Adelphi, MD, 12/2007
Associate of Applied Science, Information Management, Community College of the Air Force (CCAF), Maxwell AFB, AL, 05/2004
Associate of Applied Science, Information Systems Technology, CCAF, Maxwell AFB, AL, 05/1999

There Currently is No Federal Deadline for State Authorization for Distance Education
I often get asked, “so what date is the new federal deadline for institutions to be in compliance with state authorization regulations?”  The answer is that there is no deadline.

The Department of Education rolled back the clock on some state authorization rules.

After losing a court case and an appeal in federal court, the Department said last July that it will not enforce the vacated distance education regulation.  Therefore, there is no federal deadline.  Meanwhile, states expect that your institution comply with their regulations before you serve the first student in their jurisdiction.

So What State Authorization Deadline is the Department Delaying?
The distance education portion of the regulation was § 600.9(c).  There are two additional sections of the regulation (§ 600.9(a) and § 600.9(b)) that are not focused on distance education and remain in place.  These sections focus on what the state must do to authorize an institution, including having third-party complaint processes, identifying authorized institutions by name, and other requirements.

The states were supposed to address the new federal requirements by July 1, 2011.  Extensions were available to July 1 of this year.  A ‘Dear Colleague’ letter in January of this year reminded states of the deadline.

Much confusion ensued and there was concern by those at all types of institutions that their students might suddenly become ineligible for aid over some technical requirements.  Earlier this year, Dr. Sophia McArdle of the Department assured us that no student would lose aid because of this rule.  I know that Sophia has been working hard to help states meet this year’s deadline, but there was just too much that had to be done. I applaud Sophia and the Department for keeping their word and for issuing a new ‘Dear Colleague’ letter that extends the deadline for states to have their rules comply to July 1, 2014.

While happy for the extension, I was disappointed by a couple missed opportunities:

• Given the confusion on this issue, it was an opportunity to issue additional guidance.  There was initial guidance give in October 2010 (see Federal Register page 66858) when the regulation was first issued in 2010, but apparently that was insufficient or people could not find it. I’m hoping that the extension gives the Department time to issue more advice on what states should do and how they know if they are okay.
• The extension in the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter is actually issued to the institutions:  “In order for an institution that cannot demonstrate it meets the State authorization requirements under the Department’s regulations to receive an extension until July 1, 2014, to implement §600.9(a) and (b), the institution must obtain from the State an explanation of how an additional one-year extension will permit the State to modify its procedures to comply with amended §600.9.”  Legally, this might be the way it needs to be done, but the institution is only out-of-compliance due to state inaction.  Therefore, institutions must check a list (that does not exist) to assure that their state’s authorization agency meets federal requirements (which are confusing and open to interpretation) to determine whether it should obtain a letter from that agency explaining why a delay was needed.  Got it?  Only a handful of states and agencies will be affected, but I wish I could give you a list which ones those are.  It sure would have been nice to have an easier process.

What About State Authorization for Distance Education?
The Department apparently took the first steps to reinstate the vacated distance education rule.  In a Notice of Negotiated Rulemaking issued earlier this year, they are seeking comments on this issue.  You may recall that the original rule was vacated because they did not properly follow the commenting requirements.  Now they are.

I will be at the Hearing on this Negotiated Rulemaking that will be held in San Francisco on May 30.  I’ll let you know if anything interesting happens. Let me know if you will be there.

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET!

Photo credit: Morgue File

I was in college a mere five years ago, but in that short period of time things have really changed.  The integration of technology into the educational sphere has fundamentally altered the teaching and learning process, and those changes – the arrival of digital instructional materials and the speed at which innovators come up with new and revolutionary things – are mostly for the good.

Technology has increased the accessibility divide
Before these changes, blind and other print-disabled students faced barriers to education and were segregated from mainstream students.  But now, curricular content that was once available only in textbooks and during lectures can be disseminated through electronic books, web content, digital library databases, advance software, and mobile applications. Compared to the print world, which excluded the print-disabled because it is inherently inaccessible, this intersection of technology and education creates opportunity to expand the circle of participation and allow universal access to mainstream products for all students, disabled or not. 

Instead, inaccessible technology has permeated the classroom causing print-disabled students to be segregated more so than ever before.  Rather than level the playing field, technology has created a whole slew of challenges to replace the traditional barriers to education faced by print disabled students.  What went wrong?

Commission reviews “accessible instructional materials” and makes recommendations
In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act created the Advisory Committee on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities (AIM Commission) to find out.  The AIM Commission was charged with talking to postsecondary students, university personnel, parents, and industry experts.  They looked at the status of accessible educational technology in postsecondary education, the reasons manufacturers have failed to embrace accessibility solutions for their products, and what institutions are doing to minimize the impact on print disabled students.

In June 2010, while the AIM Commission was doing its research, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) jointly issued a “Dear Colleague” letter reminding K-12 and postsecondary schools that deploying inaccessible technology was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  In late 2011, the AIM Commission released its findings: “students with disabilities have experienced a variety of challenges, including blocked access to educational opportunities and matriculation failure resulting from inaccessible learning materials and/or their delivery systems,” and “…while there are a variety of emerging improved practices in the area of AIM, there is still persistent unmet need.”  The AIM Commission made eighteen recommendations (see EDUCAUSE summary) for fixing this – some calling for legislation, some targeting industry, and some directed at the DOE.

After years of inaction, action is required
Fast forward to 2013.  Not a single recommendation has been implemented.

That is two years since the report’s publication and five years since Congress first noticed a problem.  Five years of minimal progress.  Five years of disabled students being further segregated and challenged to finish their education without equal access.  In the interim, DOJ and DOE attempts at enforcement have failed to solve the problem.  Schools continue to embrace inaccessible technology at ever-growing speed.  When will schools stop retrofitting inaccessible products and start demanding full accessibility from the start?

The Technology, Education and Accessibility in College and Higher Education (TEACH) Act is our solution.  It calls on the Access Board to develop accessibility standards for electronic instructional materials and their delivery systems used in postsecondary education.  The DOJ will then issue regulations based on those standards, and enforce them as requirements under the ADA.  The standards will also apply to agencies of the Federal government under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, should those agencies choose to purchase instructional materials.

TEACH is based on the first recommendation of the AIM Commission report, which calls on the Access Board to develop accessibility guidelines for instructional materials used in postsecondary education.  Second, TEACH does not create new liability for postsecondary institutions.  Rather, it provides clarity to the pre-existing mandate of equal access, which is already required under ADA and enforced by DOJ and DOE (as stated in the Dear Colleague).

If TEACH becomes law, all pre-existing flexibilities, statutory provisions, and implementing regulations under the ADA would still apply.  This means no new private right of action, no new penalties, and no new exemptions.  TEACH simply provides focus to a pre-existing legal obligation.  The objective of TEACH is to significantly increase the amount of accessible instructional materials in the marketplace and in the classroom without creating any new liabilities that are unfamiliar to postsecondary institutions or would inhibit innovation.

Help us in supporting students through the TEACH Act
Most postsecondary institutions want to provide their disabled students with equal access, but they aren’t sure what accessibility looks like and they claim there are not enough affordable options in the marketplace.  Manufacturers say they are willing to embrace accessibility solutions, but they do not see a large demand for it.  Institutions are blaming manufacturers; manufacturers are blaming institutions.

In the end, the burden falls on the student.

It has been that way for more than five years – it is time we take action.  The AIM Commission report gave us the data to know where to start, and the ADA provides the legal framework to get this done without reinventing the wheel.  TEACH will make it happen.

If your entity (institution, state agency, organization, corporation, etc.) would like to add your name to the growing list of those endorsing the TEACH Act, please contact me.  Once the bill is introduced, contact your U.S. Senator or Congressperson to obtain their support.  Meanwhile, take action on your own by making sure your technologies are accessible without waiting for TEACH.

Will you support this initiative – or will we ask disabled students to wait another five years?

Lauren McLarney
Government Affairs Specialist
National Federation of the Blind
LMcLarney@nfb.org

My days, like most of us, are filled with technology-related activities.  I am the Vice President for Academic and Community Engagement for New Jersey’s State Research & Education Network, NJEDge.Net.  Every day I am up to my eyeballs in networking, academic technologies, virtualization, consortium activities, and more.  Even on days when I am away, I check in several times to look at the status of my projects.  I believe in the work that my colleagues and I do, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Richard Stockton College College helped by holding a food and clothing drive.

But who would have imagined that six months ago, on October 29, 2012 at 8:30pm, all of it would come to a screeching halt in New Jersey.  Hurricane Sandy hit and hit hard. All our priorities changed.

We knew for a week that the hurricane was coming.  NJEDge members (higher education institutes, K-12, research organizations) began to prepare.

Colleges and universities sent students home, closed their campuses, brought in extra fuel, and

worked with faculty on learning continuity strategies; all of this to keep learning, teaching, and research going, even if not on campus.

New Jersey was hit hard by Hurricane Sandy.  We sustained economic losses up to $300 billion.  Our higher education community by the shore was hit the hardest, but practically each institution had some malfunction.  Luckily for them it was not the NJEDge support system.

With NJEDge’s shared services, cloud services and remote hosting, most members kept their local networks up and their LMS’s running.  NJEDge’s statewide network, which provides Internet and Internet2 performed as designed and never went down. We remain robust.  We never lost connectivity, because redundancy was built in.  Internet access was not a problem, but power and communications on each campus was severely tested.

Lessons Learned
Several lessons were learned for the NJ Higher Education NJEDge.Net members.

Redundancy, Redundancy, Redundancy
Redundancy is not limited to networking:

• Application servers, authentication services, and web services need to be available in more than one location.
• Fuel resources have to be available from multiple vendors.
• Staff must be able to work in multiple modes.  Institutions must pay for air cards in mobile devices so that staff can perform vital tasks.
• Instruction must be available in multiple media (text, DVD, Internet, face-to-face).

Don’t Forget the People
Most important was the lesson to not forget people and their struggles:  so many of our members invited their local communities in as soon as the institution regained power.   Nearly half of the members made accommodations regarding exams, scheduling, and due dates – and still managed to end the semester on time.

Having the network running, having the LMS available simply isn’t enough.  Our faculty, staff, and students were worried about parents, children, and spouses.  They were looking for power, food, and places to live.  A few of them are still in temporary housing.  What was amazing was realizing that we had, at each of our institutions, a working community.  Using social media, our staff, faculty, and students were able to share information and resources and help one another.

The single most important role that NJEDge and our members had was providing a communications channel between individuals looking for resources of all kinds.

Next Steps
Social media was used at many New Jersey institutions to keep students informed of the situation on their campus.  While electricity was out and schools closed for days, smart phones kept communication afloat.

It is heartening to learn that faculty and students from many schools pitched in helping residents find temporary housing and to provide provisions and clothing.  Many of the residents along the shore lost everything.  Several schools created fund drives to help the victims of the storm and many used social media to get the word out and even to solicit contributions.

While we hope never to experience another hurricane as damaging as Sandy, we need to set up contingency measures.  New Jersey state agencies, research and hospital institutions, and the higher education community, along with K-12 districts represent a sizeable population to protect.  We welcome any examples of helpful technology protection colleagues can offer.

Sharing Our Stories
This blog posting is created so that we can share stories within the community, and derive contingency measures that can be put in place for the next super storm.

We reached out to our members asking for their experiences.  What follows are their stories.

Brookdale Community College
NJEDge and Brookdale Community College were in frequent contact working to keep mission-critical services up during the storm and its aftermath. In particular, Brookdale’s website was all-important conduit between college officials and our students, faculty, and staff.  Through the website we were disseminating information about when each campus would re-open and providing information about help and resources to members of the campus community affected by the storm. It was imperative that it remain available.

Our first call to NJEDge was Monday night at 11:30 PM during the worst part of the storm. All of us were at home without electricity when we received notice from our monitoring service that the college website was down. As damaging winds battered our homes, an NJEDge employee came to our aid to help orchestrate the changes needed to switch our website to Brookdale’s cloud-based backup site in Chicago.

The next day, the Office of Information Technology staff drove around downed trees and dangling power lines to arrive on campus, at which time we were able to find and correct a minor problem with our generator. As soon as we had brought our Lincroft data center back online, NJEDge assisted with DNS changes needed to restore service. Unfortunately, our return to the Internet was short lived, as twelve hours later our generator failed again, this time burning up an electrical part that was on backorder and unavailable anywhere in the country. Again, NJEDge quickly, and cheerfully, orchestrated the communication with Cogent which was needed to bring up our emergency site.

Although everyone was frustrated by the slow pace of electrical service restoration, many of in the college community remarked that they were pleased that Brookdale’s emergency website was available and up-to-date.

Fairleigh Dickinson University
Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) included in its preparation for Hurricane Sandy the rental of four large diesel generators and three 7,500 gallon trucks with diesel fuel to service the Student and Recreation Centers on each campus.  These generators were in addition to the permanently installed units that service the data centers and other select building life safety systems.  However, Hurricane Sandy prevented the normal delivery from FDU’s supplier as the supplier was flooded from the storm.  The University opted to not utilize the prearranged fuel as it had potentially been contaminated by brackish water during the flood.   In order to keep operations on keel, FDU arranged for local diesel suppliers to purchase out-of-state fuel.

The out-of-state supply was not ample to service the generator need.  As the Metropolitan Campus burns low sulfur diesel fuel in lieu of #2 fuel oil in its oil boilers, for emissions compliance, approximately 15,000 gallons was redeployed from the 20,000 gallon tank from one of the lecture halls to the generators on both campuses.

The College at Florham campus was out of power for nine days and the Metropolitan campus for seven days.  This was further complicated by students opting to stay on-campus instead of returning home.

FDU was well prepared for the storm and kept strategic buildings and services open with the generators and creative fueling. What we learned from the experience is to have multiple fuel sources with multiple depot availability.

Richard Stockton University of New Jersey
Stockton was closed Sunday-to-Tuesday during Super Storm Sandy. Monday was an instructional day. Tuesday was an advising day. Faculty had to make alternative plans for contacting their students. Some used telephone, email, Wimba Classroom, or set up appointments later in the week.

Approximately 200 students and employees were hard hit by the storm, many losing their homes. Assistance funds were set up with students and employees being very generous in their contributions.

From a technology standpoint, our data center is equipped with a UPS (uninterupted power supply) and generator. Even though the campus lost power our systems remained up throughout the storm. Power outages in the region were localized. Those who were not affected by the storm surge and power outages were able to continue with online work as usual. Student and faculty with the Blackboard Mobile Learn app were able to access the learning management system using smart phones and tablets.

Richard Stockton maintained some measures at working “against the tide.”

• Sending the residential students home was a good idea and helped ease the burden of feeding and housing the small number remaining.  Had we not sent the students home, it would have been necessary to feed 2,800 students for the duration of the storm.
• Since the storm Physical Plant has purchased 150 cots in the event a situation like this occurs again. This will alleviate the need for personnel to move mattresses to the Campus Center, which became very labor intensive.
• The need for additional emergency generator power became evident.  Although power was lost only for a short period of time, any longer would have become problematic.  The President has asked Administration and Finance to submit additional generator information and cost to him for consideration.

Georgian Court University
Classes were cancelled as soon as news of the magnitude of the storm was forecasted.  Georgian Court  (GCU) shut down its homepage, activated campus security by mass notification to students through all the emergency methods by texting, using the university’s Facebook and Twitter accounts as communication center.

When the campus lost power, our core system went down. Bringing it back up took a few hours, and this happened twice in the days immediately after Hurricane Sandy. Each time it went down, it took time to bring the servers back up in the right sequence, thus affecting a number of operations (e-mail, campus Internet access, ANGEL, the GCU portal). After the second loss of power, the university turned to its portable generators to power the bunker where our servers are kept.

For the IT staff, it was also difficult to determine how well our communications were getting through to members of the campus community.  We didn’t know what other systems (home phones, e-mail, cell phones) were available to our faculty, staff, and students.

With the hurricane directly overhead, the GCU campus lost power.  After four days of continual operation the Data Center generator ran out of Diesel fuel. That’s when the real IT work began. Once fuel arrived, the staff were tasked with bringing all services back up ASAP, which took over 6 hours. The next hurdle came three days later (one full week with no power to campus) when the generator started to spit and sputter requiring immediate maintenance. Luckily the IT staff had enough time to shut all the servers down properly. Shortly after shutdown, the “all clear” was given and the IT staff began the startup ritual for bringing services online. This time only the essential servers and services were brought up. These included Active Directory, Exchange, and SharePoint, each to support communications of staff, faculty, and students. Crucial data systems such as the File servers and ERP system were left in the safer off-state site until campus power was fully restored a few days later.

We saw definite benefits during the outage by having our main web site and student LMS hosted off-campus. For those that remained on-campus during the storm, they were challenged with outages to the IP surveillance system, the IP-based building card access system, and our small deployment of VOIP sets. It came down to power, whereas the GCU buildings with generators and utility power (there were a couple) had network connectivity, wireless, and telecommunications.

William Paterson University
William Patterson University survived the storm well. The damage was mostly from fallen trees. The University had well-defined disaster plans and a standing committee, which immediately went into action.

From a technical standpoint, the WPU Data Center ran on the natural gas generator power so all computer and network systems remained operational. One of our Internet circuits went down for a few hours affecting external telephone services to campus, but all Internet traffic routed to a secondary circuit did not lose data connectivity. We had a minor disruption of on-campus telephone service because an older generator supporting the telephone equipment did not start-up automatically when the power failed. Cell service was acceptable and campus radio communications were not disrupted, so there were no serious communication problems as a result of the loss of telephone service.

Our alert system, ConnectEd worked fine. as well as our web site postings and WPU e-mail announcements. Not all network switches and routers are on generators, so in those buildings, access to the campus network was unavailable until power was restored.  We have plans to have all network equipment on generators and move to complete VoIP which would provide better communications resiliency.

New Jersey Institute of Technology
In the final days of October, it became clear that the NJIT campus in Newark was in the path of Hurricane Sandy. For the IT team at NJIT, preparing for one of the most disruptive storms in recent history meant being ready for a loss of network connectivity, a prolonged power outage that could last days and even possible water damage to their data center environment. They decided that it was necessary to take proactive measures to ensure the availability of critical IT services. Deemed the most important piece to protect was the university’s web presence.

“The NJIT website is the face of the university and all of its college websites,” explained Kevin Byron, director of core systems for NJIT. “It is the primary communication tool among all members of the NJIT community. To have the website up [during a natural disaster like Sandy] was critical.”

The NJIT team decided that the best way to ensure the availability of the university’s website was to relocate their web presence. They sought a solution they could implement quickly with the storm approaching. They needed to act. And they needed to act soon.

Byron and his colleague, Matt Hoskins, senior enterprise architect for NJIT, reached out to NJEDge.Net, the statewide, member-focused provider of network and related services and a trusted strategic partner to the higher education community in New Jersey.

Critical Communication
On Monday, October 29, as Sandy reached the coast of New Jersey and moved inland, New Jersey Institute of Technology was prepared. Even with a loss of power in the NJIT data center environment, there was no lag, no dead air on their website. And they were able to maintain their web presence throughout the duration of the storm and its aftermath. This proved to make all the difference for NJIT students, faculty, and staff.

The NJIT campus lost power for approximately 22½ hours, beginning Monday night and continuing into Tuesday evening. And while power was restored, Newark and its surrounding areas were in such disarray from the storm that classes were cancelled for five days and the campus was closed until the morning of Saturday, November 3.

During the storm, NJIT staff were able to communicate campus-wide status updates via a text ribbon at the top of the NJIT webpage. These updates included class cancellations as well as services availability and restorations.

“That text ribbon had a 200 character maximum, but during the storm those were the most important 200 characters on the entire site,” Byron said.

The updates included a link to the NJIT SOS Blog, which contained more detail than could be communicated effectively through the text ribbon. NJIT SOS is a WordPress blog, so the infrastructure was logically distinct from the NJIT campus and available.

In the days following the power outage on campus, the number of hits on the NJIT SOS Blog skyrocketed. The ribbon and NJIT webpage were clearly important to a great number of people. Byron and Hoskins observed that most users who accessed the blog and website during the storm did so using smartphones.

A Sound Solution

On Friday, November 2, pleased with the restoration on campus, the NJIT website was returned to its primary location on the NJIT campus datacenter environment in Newark. All agreed that it was a successful undertaking and were pleased with the ease with which it was accomplished.

New Jersey Homeland Security
NJEDge played a part in keeping communication fluid between the Office of the Governor with national and state officials throughout Hurricane Sandy.  Through our virtual colocation and redundancy abilities, we were able to provide Vidyo videoconferencing telepresence to the different departments– the Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, the New Jersey State Police, Regional Operations Intelligence Center, Office of Emergency Management and the National Guard – to be informed in real time.

We welcome any examples of ways to protect students, faculty, staff, and technology that colleagues can offer.

Sheri

Sheri Prupis
Vice President for Community and Academic Initiatives
NJEDge.Net
Sheri.Prupis@NJEDGE.NET

Copyrighted photo used with permission of Richard Stockton College of New Jersey:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stockton_edu/8168506558/in/set-72157631964433643

It is also taking input on other issues, including: cash management of federal financial aid funds, state authorization for foreign locations of institutions located in a state, clock-to-credit hour conversion, gainful employment, and changes from the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

This is the beginning of the process for the Department creating new regulations on these issues.  It is important that our voices be heard at the outset.  We wish to help inform and guide these discussions to dispel some of the misconceptions upon which some regulations were based in the past.

Seeking your input

By giving our feedback now, let’s hope to avoid some of the confusion from previous regulations.

On behalf of WCET and the WCET State Authorization Network, we will be submitting comments on the following issues.  I’d love your help, feedback, and suggestions on what should be recommended:

Financial aid fraud

The Department references a previous call for negotiated rulemaking that was issued in May 2012 that had a primary focus on the fraudulent use of financial aid funds.   While fraud comes in many forms, there is distrust of distance education and great worry about the opportunity for the misuse of funds for students who don’t appear on campus. Such concerns led to the proposal in last year’s federal budget from the Administration to lessen Pell eligibility for distance students.  While that proposal did not go forward, it is probably still on their list of possible solutions.

Briefly, here are some points that we would like to make in comments:

• Don’t confuse fraud (someone faking their identity purely to get money) with academic integrity (a known student cheating on a test to get a better grade).
• Don’t punish the innocent.  The Pell grant proposal was an example of a solution that would be equal to solving the problem of bank robberies by closing all the banks.
• Promote education of the types of suspicious activities that are common among fraudsters.  Sometimes faculty or other administrators can raise red flags that others would not see.
• Promote good practices in combating fraud, both in the administrative and academic sectors of the institution.  The more difficult it is for the fraudster to jump through administrative and academic hoops, the less inclined they are to commit fraud.
• Don’t look for a silver bullet.  It’s not there.

What else would you suggest?

State authorization for distance education

The regulation issued in 2010 was vacated by the federal courts ruling that the proper rulemaking process was not followed.  This is the first step in their following the rulemaking process and my guess is that this regulation is on its way back.  I’m NOT going to recommend that the federal government stay out of this issue because it is with us regardless of what they do.  Some comments that I would like to make:

• If you reissue this regulation, be sure that there is adequate time for institutions to comply and for states to respond.  Even though institutions have been repeatedly warned about this issue, a large number are still out-of-compliance.
• Repeat the Department’s strong support for reciprocity.  In the past, the Department has supported the notion of reciprocity several times, but some people still can’t hear it and previous support was based on the vacated regulation.
• Please provide clear guidance on several issues that remained unclear from the previous round with state authorization, such as:
  • how you will count if a student can receive 50% of a program in another state,
  • will consortia agreements suffice for reciprocity,
  • how do internships (and other experiential learning) fit into the authorization requirement,
  • will the current worries about “exemptions” for in-state institutions also apply to providers from other states, and
  • what is the penalty for non-compliance?

Some of these really get into the minutiae and I will expand in the final comments.

• As much as possible, rely on each state’s definition for authorization and don’t create new definitions to layer on top of those regulations.  For example, differences in regulations could lead an institution to being in compliance for federal purposes but not for state purposes.

What would you add?

State authorization for foreign locations of institutions located in a state

This one really surprised me and it is worded oddly.  I’ve confirmed that by “foreign” they are talking about institutions that have locations in other countries.  With the growth of such institutional ventures abroad, I can see that the federal government might be concerned about the quality control.  I’ve also learned that there are some institutions that are located in the U.S., but teach no students here.  They look like a U.S. institution, but no U.S. entity has approved them.  There’s great potential for defrauding foreign students.  I’m not sure how this fits in with federal financial aid, but we’ll learn more about it. My comments:

• Does this apply to distance education, as well as “locations?”  If so, what does that mean?
• Is this only for federal financial aid?

What are your thoughts?

Overall philosophy

I have one overall philosophy that I wish that regulators move toward adopting:

Regulations should not differentiate by mode of instruction unless the regulations are actually about the tools used in the mode of instruction.

Let’s stop differentiating aid based upon whether a student is on-campus or not.  We should focus on student outcomes.  Our future will see more technologies, more modes of instruction, greater mixes of face-to-face and distance, and a greater focus on competency-based instruction.  It is getting harder and harder to differentiate this modes of instruction as they all become intermingled, thus making the differentiation obsolete.

Stop worrying about the inputs.  The current definition of distance education includes many technologies.  Given the rapid change in technologies, any such list is out-of-date as soon as it is published.

Regulations should be in place when they are actually about the tools being used.  Institutions have been lax in assuring accessibility for the disabled.  It makes sense to assure that access is open to all.

Next Steps

Comments are due to the Department by the end of May.   You may submit your own comments.  To be contribute to WCET’s official response, supply comments below or send your thoughts directly to me at rpoulin@wiche.edu by Monday May 20.  There are also three opportunities to testify on these issues.  The dates and process to register to testify is in the announcement.

This feedback process is just the first step.  Later this year the will ask for nominees to be on a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to consider specific regulatory language.   We will continue to follow these issues, actively participate, seek you input, provide comments, and suggest stronger action, if needed.

Your input makes our collective voice stronger, so thank you for sharing it!

Russ

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

Support our work.  Join WCET!

Photo came from Morgue File: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/185087

This guest blog post is a continuation of the thoughts shared by WCET’s Russell Poulin in February, 2013.  In that post, Russ responded to criticisms and observations of eLearning which were published in a New York Times editorial as well as a report by the Community College Research Center.

Russ stated, “The biggest takeaway that I took from the CCRC research is the need to make sure that students are prepared to succeed in an online course.”  This statement caught my attention as this has pretty much been my life’s work for the past decade.  Since 2002 we have measured the levels of online learning readiness from over two million students with our Learning Readiness Indicator.

In the section of Russ’s blog post titled “Students Adapting  to Online Learning”  Russ stated that when one first experiences online learning, the student who is new to online learning must “adapt” to this learning modality.  He added, “The vast majority of students spend the bulk of their education career without having taken an online course. It is an adjustment.”  I fully concur with this observation.

Each year we publish for free the National Student Readiness Report (pdf). The report presents aggregate data from over a half million students each year who have taken the assessment.  One of the demographic factors which we collect on the assessment is “How many prior online courses have you taken?”   Sometimes a student enrolling in school A has already taken several prior online courses at school B.  Most of the time, the new students have had little or no prior online learning experience.  In the annual Readiness Report, we compare the means of each of our scales across persons based on their prior experience in online learning.

You Can’t Beat Experience
One of the strongest findings of this section of the report is that when it comes to distance learning – experience matters.  Students who have taken five or more prior online courses had statistically significant higher means (random sample of 300) than students who had taken fewer online courses on the following subscales: Persistence, Procrastination, Time Management, Locus of Control, Technical Knowledge, and Help Seeking.   Students with this level of online learning experience also had statistically significant higher means in all six of the major scales measured by the assessment with the exception of reading and typing rate.

The greatest difference in means from students with no prior online course experience and those who had taken five or more courses continued to be in the area of technical knowledge. This indicates that with experience students can learn to use the technology required for online courses.

The take away for eLearning leaders is that we really need to hold the hands of students who are new to online learning.  If we can closely support them and help them persist past that second online course, then the learning curve for eLearning levels out.  This fact is perhaps a partial explanation of the higher dropout rates for new online students which was cited (albeit inappropriately) in the New York Times editorial.

I also concur with Russ when he stated, “The authors are off-base in suggesting that students be ‘screened’ out of an online class.”  Very few of the schools which use our readiness assessment use it for screening.  If they do so, then typically they recommend the student take the course through a hybrid or on-campus delivery system.  No schools use it as an admissions screening device.  Schools need students.  Schools also need students who will remain enrolled.

In the 2012 National Student Readiness Report, the majority (54%) of students reported that they had never taken an online course prior to taking the SmarterMeasure assessment. It is worthy of note that the percentage of students who have never taken an online course is decreasing. (see graph above:  2012 = 54%, 2011 = 55%, 2010 = 60%, 2009 = 65%) This is an indicator that eLearning is becoming a more common educational delivery system.  It is important to note that the CRCC study’s cohort  included “degree-seeking students who initially enrolled in one of Washington State’s 34 community or technical colleges during the fall term of 2004.”  The percentage of students who had never taken an online course was probably much higher nearly a decade ago.

Demographics and Online Learning
The CCRC study focused on certain demographic groups underperforming in online courses.  In the National Student Readiness Report, we also cross tabulate means of our scales across several demographic factors.  Aggregate data from over 690,000 online students who took the assessment over a twelve month period revealed that for the past four years in a row females have had statistically significant higher means in Individual Attributes, Academic Attributes, and Time Management.  Over that same four year period of time, males had higher means in Technical Knowledge.  Caucasians also had higher means in Technical Knowledge for four years in a row.

It is a fact that some learners are a better fit for online learning due to their attributes and skills.  But should that imply that they not take online courses?  As one of our client institutions recently stated, “You cannot change a tiger’s stripes, but you can teach that tiger to hunt in a different environment.”  Through well-developed orientation courses and other online student support services, we can equip students with no prior experience with the skills to learn online.

Dr. Daniel Golman, author of Emotional Intelligence, recently blogged about the topic  “It’s Modes, Not Personality Traits.”  He emphasized that persons tend to behave in different ways in different circumstances.  In our context, a person who is a habitual procrastinator about online course assignments may never procrastinate about other activities such as working out in a gym.  As educators it is beneficial in our communications with students to talk in terms of one’s traits in the mode of learning.

By assessing an individual’s attributes, attitudes, and skills for the context of  eLearning, both the individual and their school are better equipped to determine the level of readiness of a new online student so that the appropriate resources for support can be provided. 

Mac Adkins
President
SmarterServices.com
mac@SmarterServices.com

The session focused on the report:  Advancing Access through Regulatory Reform: Findings, Principles, and Recommendations for the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) that was recently released by the Commission on the Regulation on Postsecondary Distance Education.   The Commission, which is a committee formed by APLU (the land-grant universities) and the State Higher Education Executive Officers, built upon the work of previous efforts of the Presidents’ Forum/Council of State Governments and the regional higher education compacts.  You can see a short history of state authorization and the reciprocity efforts on our web page.

Sponsored by Lumina Foundation, the meeting attendees included representatives from 47 states.   Delaware, Hawaii, and New York were not represented.  While they did not send participants, we know that there was interest in the first two of those states in participating. Others in attendance to this invitational event included those who had involvement in shaping the reciprocity language.

Opening Remarks and Support

The report is meant to be a framework for reciprocity with additional provisions to be detailed in the final SARA wording.  The meeting started with several introductory sessions presenting the principles outlined in the report.

A letter was read from Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education, lending her support to reciprocity.  Hal Plotkin of the U.S. Department of Education had the most memorable metaphor of the night, which you can ask me about later.  While the Department of Education cannot formally endorse the work, he brought a two-word message from the Secretary Arne Duncan and  Under Secretary Martha Kanter:  “thank you.”

Some Questions that Arose

If they can receive foundation support to begin the effort, the regional higher education compacts (Midwestern Higher Education Compact, New England Board of Higher Education, Southern Regional Education Board, and Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education) will be charged with jointly implementing the agreement in as seamless a way as possible.  Regional sessions were held to cover additional fine points of reciprocity and to gather comments and questions from participants.  There were many items on which there were agreement and many questions were raised.  David Longanecker, president of WICHE, highlighted a few in a final plenary session:

• Accreditation.  There is  still some angst about the efficacy of depending on accreditation for quality assurance.  David sees reciprocity as a way to give us all more license to work with the accrediting community.  Working together, we should be able to have more evidence to take to the accrediting agencies about any concerns.
• Fees.  The report was relatively silent on fees.  The current plan for fees includes:
  • State fees to institutions.  The state might decide to charge an institution for the process of authorizing it to participate in SARA.  States raised questions about their own ability to charge institutions (this might be currently prohibited in some states) and the reorganization of duties required.
  • Institutional fees to join SARA.  Institutions participating in SARA will be charged a yearly fee on a sliding scale based on overall institutional FTE:  $2,000 for those less than 2,500, $4,000 for those 2,501 – 10,000, and $6,000 for those more than 10,000 FTE.  Due to the current high variance in how “distance education” enrollments are counted, overall institutional FTE is the current proposed metric.
  • State fees to join SARA.  States in a regional compact will not be charged.  For those states and territories not in a compact (District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico), they would be charged $50,000 to affiliate with a regional compact for this one purpose.  (UPDATED: 04/18/13 – Delaware is part of SREB, while Pennsylvania is not in a regional compact)
• Legislative and Regulatory Language.  States will need assistance with the proper language.  While the regional compacts can’t lobby, they plan to provide some help in crafting language and in connecting states to learn from each other both about legislative language and  in handling the fees issue raised earlier.
• Determination of Home State.  There are several examples of complex relationships and the details on those outliers needs to be considered.  It is clear that institutional shopping for a state will not be tolerated.
• Professional Accreditation.  There was a proposal to have more restrictions on education offered in fields of study in which licensure or other professional accreditation is required in a state.
• Metrics for Holding a State Accountable.  Clear metrics will need to be developed as to what a state reports.
• The Physical Presence Limit of 25% of Course Instruction.  More justification, details, and metrics were requested.

Again, these are all questions.  Some reflect items on which this is considerable work, but either additional details, subtle nuances, or more justification is needed.  A few of the items will need much more work.

Next Steps

Recordings of the meeting will be made available in the next few weeks.  When I receive the links, I will post them to the blog.  Watch for additional follow-up information from the Presidents’ Forum and the Commission.

The regional compacts are very optimistic about receiving grant support to move forward on this work.  Once they do, they will hire staff and hold regional meetings to discuss these issues.

Finally, A Note about Tone

While much of the meeting was very positive, there was significant regulator bashing during the meeting.  Some of those with regulatory roles let me know of their displeasure.

While there are regulations that are real head-scratchers, there is real purpose behind many of these regulations. We should not paint everyone charged with overseeing authorization in the states with the same brush.  They are charged with upholding their laws.  They are charged with protecting students.

Reciprocity is asking them to make significant changes in their work, to go out on a limb and trust others, and to accept the risk of those changes.  Since they will face much of the impact, the least the rest of us can do is respect them and listen to them.

Russ

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

Support our work!  Join WCET.