Distance Education Survey: California Community Colleges Modesto Junior College

Transcription

1 Distance Education Survey: California Community Colleges Modesto Junior College Grants and Resource Development Office Technology Task Force Report prepared by the Center of Excellence Project funded by the U.S. Department of Education Title V Grant

2 In Spring 2011, the MJC Grants and Resource Development Office conducted a phone survey of 112 California Community Colleges to obtain information related to Distance Education program/course offerings and structure. The information collected from the survey will support planning and implementation of Modesto Junior College s Distance Education program. Distance Education as defined by the California Community Colleges Chancellor s Office is instruction in which the instructor and student are separated by distance and interact through the assistance of communication technology. Whether a course is to be considered as DE, the basic criterion established in the Guidelines (March 2004) under Section needs to be applied (i.e., a distance education course/section or session utilizes technology 51 percent or more of the time to deliver instruction during the course term.) In determining the type of distance education modality to assign to a course, the predominant mode of delivery, in terms of time spent, is then applied to course sections where multiple distance education delivery modes (i.e., Internet, television, video tape, etc.) are present. In an effort to understand the structure and components of California Community College Distance Education programs, Modesto Junior College Grant Development office in partnership with the Center of Excellence, conducted a statewide survey followed by a substantive analysis. The survey data will provide information supporting the establishment of a framework for strengthening Modesto Junior College s Distance Education program. In order to identify optimal structure and components, it is important to compare and contrast Distance Education efforts across the State. Statewide Distance Education performance data also lends itself to the substantiation of programmatic findings. In reviewing the survey data, it was clear that community colleges have intra- and inter-program variations in the number of courses within programs as well as retention and success rates. From a programmatic standpoint, Modesto Junior College s Distance Education program results revealed that the College s Agriculture and Natural Resources Programs had the highest retention rate at 90.6%, and the Health programs had the highest success rate at 83.4%. However, Modesto Junior College s Distance Education retention and success rates were lower than those of the State overall. The Statewide and Modesto Junior College results are contained in Table 1. Table 1: Fall 2010 MJC and State Distance Education Retention and Success Rate Comparisons Modesto Statewide Retention 82.9% 84.6% Success 63.0% 68.1% Modesto Junior College s Distance Education retention and success rates were also compared to individual colleges. The College did not rank within the top 50% in either category. More specifically, Modesto Junior College s retention rate rank was 105 out of 115, and its success rate rank was 82 out of 115. An immediate observation is that a large gap between Modesto Junior College s Distance Education retention and success rates exists; however, the extreme mismatch between retention and success appears to be a prevalent issue across the state. This can be observed in Table 2, which ranks the top twenty Fall 2010 California Community College Distance Education programs by retention and success. 2

3 Table 2: Fall 2010 Distance Education Retention and Success Retention Success College Rate College Rate Napa 99.9% Napa 85.3% Glendale 99.4% Canyons 82.9% Canyons 94.6% Glendale 81.2% Citrus 94.1% Taft 77.9% Feather River 93.3% Lake Tahoe 76.2% Taft 92.6% Foothill 76.1% Lake Tahoe 92.0% Feather River 74.2% Marin 91.0% Marin 74.1% Santa Barbara 90.2% Santa Barbara 73.8% Reedley College 89.9% Santa Ana 73.2% Butte 89.0% Palo Verde 72.8% Barstow 88.9% Deanza 71.7% Fresno City 88.7% Moreno Valley 71.4% Foothill 88.6% Hartnell 71.3% Siskiyou 88.3% Orange Coast 71.2% Palomar 88.3% Pasadena 71.2% Sequoias 88.0% Folsom Lake 71.0% Crafton Hills 87.8% San Diego Miramar 70.8% San Diego Miramar 87.3% Ohlone 70.7% Mt San Antonio 87.3% Desert 70.7% There are number of well-known factors that contribute to Distance Education student retention and success, and many of them are outside of the colleges scope and/or ability to address and resolve. However, there are some definite things that colleges can do provided there is a clear identification of each one s unique challenges and a college-wide commitment to develop affective resolution. Most of the challenges for Distance Education have central themes that involve technological choices, level and type of student access, and supporting structures. The 2011 Modesto Junior College Distance Education survey questions were structured to extract information in each of these topic areas. The first area of focus was student access by way of portal for viewing/obtaining Distance Education information. The various responses that were provided are indicative that each college either picked up on only certain components of the question or interpreted the question differently. In essence, the responses varied from portals, to platforms, to websites, to learning management systems that are, in some cases, supported by data management systems. Of the 108 Colleges that responded to the portal question, a Yes or No response was first extracted from the data. The Yes/No response was based strictly on whether or not some type of data displaying application was indicated. An attempt was then made to organize the various named applications into the same 3

4 or similar groups using title, vendor name or (assumed) product type. For example, a product that started with "My" is contained under the My category. These products varied from MyFRC to mysite. In order to fully capture all named products, those that contained two names will be counted in two places. Two examples would be myetudes (My and Etudes), and Blackboard/Banner (Blackboard and Banner). The Yes/No results are in Figure 1, and the top 10 organized responses are in Figure 2. Detailed responses to Table 3 are in Appendix A. Figure 1: Uses an electronic interface to display distance education information 88.9% 11.1% No Yes The survey contained a question related to what specific portal each college uses, however it was evident in the wide variety of responses that respondents do not use the same terminology or define student portal in different manners. Table 3 below summarizes the various portals used across California Community Colleges. Table 3: Uses a student portal to display distance education information (Detail) Portal/Display of DE Information Type/Application Percent Academic Computing 0.9% Blackboard 0.9% Campus EAI 0.9% ConsairConnect 0.9% ConsairConnect 0.9% CourseCompass 0.9% GWC 0.9% Homegrown 0.9% ilearn 0.9% Mahara 0.9% Omni Update 0.9% 4

5 E-Campus 1.9% The Zone 1.9% Datatel 2.8% E-learning page 2.8% Eperalta 2.8% Open Campus 2.8% Etudes 3.7% Luminus 3.7% WebCT 3.7% Banner 5.6% Webadvisor 8.3% College Website 14.8% My 28.7% Respondents were also asked to provide information regarding learning management systems. There were several instances where more than one system was identified at a single college. These (implied) couplings of systems were retained to preserve the integrity of the data, for better understanding of system integration function, and the correlation (if any) to efficient and effective Distance Learning programs. By far, the Learning Management System with the highest rate of use is Blackboard at 45% followed by Moodle at 18.7%, and Etudes at 9.3%. If the integration of these three products is taken into the equation, usage increases to 51.4%, 22.4%, and 12.1% respectively. The Learning Management System data from the107 responding colleges are contained in Figure 2. Figure 2: What Learning Management System is used? Blackboard Moodle Etudes Desire to learn WebCT Sakai Homegrown Etudes & Blackboard & Course Campus e-college Angel Sakai & Blackboard & Web CT Moodle & Etudes & Blackboard Moodle & Etudes Moodle & Blackboard Etudes & Sakai CATE Blackboard & Tegrity Angel & Moodle 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 9.3% 7.5% 18.7% 45.8% 5

6 Colleges provided information related to the administrative structure of distance education programs, specifically providing job titles and number of staff within the program. Figure 3 gives the distribution of staff across responding colleges. 83 community colleges provided this information. Figure 3: Distance Education (DE) Position Distribution for Responding Colleges Other (Techs, Prgm Assist, Media Designer, DE Supervisor, etc) 17% Other exludes Clerical Support & Student Workers ** 1% Dean of DE (often with other duties) 21% Tech Support 8% DE Director 8% Programmers 2% Web Master/Developer 3% Trainers/Facilitators * 7% Instructional Technologists 5% Instructional Deisgners 6% DE Specialist 2% DE Coordinator 20% Respondents were asked to provide detailed information about the type and level of distance education technical support services provided to students. The vast majority, 96.1% of the 103 colleges, responding indicate multiple types of technical support were available to their Distance Education students. All of the types of services and the number of college s providing that support are contained in Table 4. It is important to note that the following data was commentary, and that those comments were schematically organized for replication and analysis. Also, many of the listed services were actually intertwined; for example, some colleges indicated instructors provided support, and that the support came in various forms including chat boards, and phone. This would be counted as 4 forms of support; 1 for instructor, 1 for chat, 1 for , and 1 for phone. Further, some of the colleges noted just Presidium, or Presidium 24/7, or just 24/7. It is understood that Presidium is a 24/7 service; therefore, any notation of Presidium is counted twice (Presidium and 24/7). This was done in order to capture the maximum amount of detail from the respondents commentaries. 6

7 Table 4: Types of Student Technical Support Services Provision Student Technical Support Type # of Colleges % of Colleges Type # of Colleges % of Colleges Phone % Orientations 9 8.7% % Instructors 9 8.7% Helpdesk % Presidium 8 7.8% 24/ % Videos 8 7.8% Chat (lines or boards) % Office, Admin. or Staff 7 6.8% FAQ (sessions or page) % Etudes 6 5.8% Tutorials % Classes 5 4.9% Online % WebCT 1 1.0% Drop In Center % Trainings or Workshops 1 1.0% Blackboard % Guides 1 1.0% n=103 A large majority, 72.8%, of the colleges provide between two and four types of Student Technical Support Services. Figure 4 is a visual depiction of the ten most frequently noted types. As can be seen, the three most prevalent were Phone, , and Helpdesk. Figure 4: Ten Most Frequently Noted Student Technical Support Services Phone 72.8% 69.9% Helpdesk 41.7% 24/7 30.1% Chat (lines or boards) 24.3% FAQ (sessions or page) Tutorials Online Drop In Center Blackboard 18.4% 17.5% 16.5% 13.6% 9.7% 7

8 Respondents were also asked about the provision of faculty technical support, with a total of 95 college responses. The list of Faculty Technical Support Services from the responding 94 colleges is contained in Table 5. Table 5: Types of Faculty Technical Support Provision Faculty Technical Support Type Number of Colleges Percent of Colleges % Phone % Office, Admin or Staff % 24/ % Helpdesk % Online % Blackboard % Drop In Center % Chat (lines or boards) % Trainings or Workshops % Presidium 8 8.5% FAQ (sessions or page) 8 8.5% Videos 7 7.4% Guides 4 4.3% Etudes 3 3.2% Tutorials 3 3.2% Orientations 1 1.1% support was the most prevalent faculty technical support provided, phone was second, and human service (office, administrator(s), and staff) was third. The top ten noted faculty support services are depicted in Figure 5. Figure 5: Ten Most Frequently Noted Faculty Technical Support Services 51.1% Phone 45.7% Office, Admin or Staff 37.2% 24/7 29.8% Helpdesk Online 19.1% 22.3% Drop In Center Blackboard Trainings or Workshops Chat (lines or boards) 12.8% 12.8% 10.6% 10.6% 8

9 The Number of technical services provided to Faculty appears to be fewer than those provided to students with 72.3% noting three or fewer services. The colleges were asked to provide the number Distance Education classes or sessions that were being taught. Some of the colleges gave a specific number, some gave a range, and some gave detail on the number of fully online, the number of hybrid, and (in one case) the number of ITV sessions. Figure 6 depicts the responses of the 72 colleges that responded to this question. Data provided indicates that the majority of these colleges have between 50 and 199 sessions. See Figure 6. Figure 6: Range of Distance Education Sessions Being Taught 26.4% 26.4% 15.3% 22.2% 9.7% Colleges also provided information regarding distance education funding. Of 73 colleges who responded to this question, 94.5% of them indicated that Distance Education was paid out of a General Fund and/or was paid for by the District, 20.5% indicated they also had some type of Grant Funding, and 5.5% specified Release Time allotments. Although it was important to include a State level perspective, the unique nature of each college was particularly interesting. Therefore, region/location, size and ethnic distribution were variables utilized in the establishment of an appropriate core group of Modesto Junior College peers. The ethnic distributions of the peer cohort plus those of Modesto Junior College are contained in Table 6. 9

10 College Modesto Junior College: Distance Education Survey Report Table 6: Responding Peer College & Modesto Junior College Ethnic Distributions White Hispanic African- American Race/Ethnicity Asian/ Pacific Islander American- Indian 2 or More Races/ Unknown American River 45.1% 16.1% 8.9% 11.0% 0.9% 17.9% Cerro Coso 33.7% 18.4% 2.9% 2.8% 1.6% 40.5% Chaffey 23.9% 43.1% 9.5% 10.2% 0.4% 12.8% Columbia 60.8% 14.1% 5.8% 2.9% 1.6% 14.7% Fresno City 26.2% 38.6% 8.2% 15.3% 1.0% 10.7% Gavilan 37.0% 34.0% 4.0% 7.1% 0.7% 17.2% Glendale 50.7% 20.7% 2.1% 12.9% 0.2% 13.4% Grossmont 47.0% 21.9% 8.2% 12.2% 0.8% 9.9% Hartnell 18.2% 53.1% 2.6% 6.3% 0.5% 19.2% LA City 18.8% 42.5% 10.5% 19.0% 0.3% 9.0% Merced 33.4% 41.3% 4.7% 10.5% 1.0% 9.2% Modesto Junior 39.7% 30.2% 3.7% 7.6% 1.0% 17.9% Mt. San Jacinto 40.6% 28.6% 7.5% 6.5% 1.1% 15.7% Porterville 16.4% 52.2% 1.3% 3.6% 1.0% 25.5% Reedley 32.9% 45.6% 2.8% 7.3% 1.1% 10.3% San Joaquin Delta 29.0% 31.1% 10.8% 19.8% 1.0% 8.4% Santa Barbara City 51.2% 29.9% 2.7% 8.3% 0.7% 7.1% Santa Rosa Junior 53.4% 19.1% 2.2% 4.6% 0.9% 19.8% Sequoias 29.4% 42.3% 2.6% 4.9% 0.7% 20.0% Sierra 65.4% 13.8% 1.9% 5.7% 1.1% 12.0% Taft 36.3% 39.7% 4.8% 2.0% 1.2% 16.1% West Hills Coalinga 26.0% 51.3% 7.5% 6.7% 0.9% 7.5% West Hills Lemoore 33.9% 42.1% 7.9% 7.4% 1.1% 7.5% All twenty-two Peer Colleges provided the names of their Learning Management Systems. As was the case with the State level data, a large majority of these colleges use Blackboard and Moodle. The percentage of Peer Colleges using specified Learning Management Systems is depicted in Figure 7. 10

11 Figure 7: What learning management system is used? Peer Colleges Blackboard 45.5% Moodle 22.7% Etudes 9.1% Etudes & Sakai ecollege Desire to learn CATE Blackboard & Tegrity 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% The next area of inquiry was Structure. Of the twenty-two Peer Colleges, two of them did not provide Distance Education Administrative Structure Information. The responses of the remaining twenty colleges are contained in Figure 8. Figure 8: Distance Education (DE) Position Distribution for (Responding) Peer Colleges Other (Techs, Prgm Assist, Media Designer, DE Supervisor, etc) 15% Other (exludes clerical support; Student Workers )** 3% Dean of DE (often with other duties) 22% Tech Support 10% Programmers 0% DE Director 7% Web Master/ Developer 0% Trainer/Facilitator * 5% Instructional Technologist 8% Instructional Deisgners 3% DE Specialist 2% DE Coordinator 25% 11

12 As illustrated in Figure 8 above, 25% of the Peer Colleges have a Distance Education Coordinator, and 10% have a Technical Support person, which is reflective of Modesto Junior College s staffing structure. Modesto Junior College also has 0.6 FTE of a Trainer/Facilitator, a Web Master/Developer, and a Programmer dedicated to Distance Education. Comparatively, none of the Peer Colleges have either of the two latter positions. Additionally, 22% of the Peer Colleges have a Distance Education Dean, 15% have some type of Other technical person(s), 7% have a Director, 8% have Instructional Technologist(s), 3% have Instructional Designer(s), and 2% have a Specialist; whereas, Modesto Junior College has none of these positions. Table 7 contains a list of Technical Support offerings for Distance Education students that were noted by the Peer Colleges. The majority or 63.6% of the Peer Colleges appear to offer four or more services. Table 7: Peer College Types of Student Technical Support Services Provision Student Technical Support Type # of Colleges % of Colleges Type # of Colleges % of Colleges Helpdesk % Presidium % Phone % Blackboard % % Tutorials % 24/ % Orientations % Chat (lines or boards) % Etudes % Online % Classes % FAQ (sessions or page) % Instructors % n=22 Drop In Center % Office, Admin. or Staff 1 4.5% The percentage distribution of noted services across the Peer Colleges can also be observed in Figure 9. Figure 9: Peer College Student Technical Support Services Helpdesk Phone Chat (lines or boards) 24/7 Online Drop In Center FAQ (sessions or page) Orientations Tutorials Blackboard Presidium Classes Etudes Office, Admin or Staff Instructors 18.2% 18.2% 13.6% 13.6% 13.6% 13.6% 9.1% 9.1% 4.5% 4.5% 31.8% 31.8% 27.3% 63.6% 59.1% 59.1% 12

13 Although the order is rearranged in that Helpdesk is now the most predominant service being provided followed by , and then Phone, the top three Student Technical Services for Distance Education remain constant. The Faculty Technical Services available among the Peer Colleges is also a shortened list of that which is being provided across the State. That information is contained in Table 8. Table 8: Types of Faculty Technical Support Provision Faculty Technical Support Type # of Colleges % of Colleges Type # of Colleges % of Colleges Office, Admin. or Staff % Drop In Center % n= % Trainings or Workshops % Phone % Presidium % 24/ % Online 2 9.1% Helpdesk % FAQ (sessions or page) 1 4.5% Blackboard % Chat (lines or boards) 1 4.5% There appears to be fewer support mechanisms available to faculty as opposed to students; however, was also one of this cohort s top three provisional services. This was followed by some type of specified human support, which was noted as an Office, an Administrator(s), and/or Staff in the commentaries. The third most Faculty Technical Support Service noted by the Peer Colleges was some type of 24/7 service. Those specified services are depicted in Figure 10. Figure 10: Faculty Technical Support Services Noted By Peer Colleges Office, Admin or Staff 24/7 Phone Blackboard Helpdesk Drop In Center Trainings or Workshops Presidium Online Chat (lines or boards) FAQ (sessions or page) 4.5% 4.5% 9.1% 13.6% 18.2% 22.7% 27.3% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% 40.9% 40.9% 13

14 All of the Peer Colleges reported the number of Distance Education Sessions being taught. The majority of this group indicated between 50 and 99. See Figure 11 for the range distributions. Figure 11: Range of Peer College Distance Education Sessions Being Taught 36.8% 21.1% 15.8% 10.5% 15.8% Out of the twenty two Peer Colleges, twenty of them provided Distance Education Funding information. Once again General and/or District Funding was the predominate source at 90.0% followed by Grants at 40.0% and Release Time was noted in 5.0% of the cases. Of the twenty-two responding Peer Colleges, fifteen of them were qualified in this analysis as being Hispanic Serving Institutions. The qualifier was having 25% or greater ( ) annual Hispanic headcount on the Chancellor s Systems Office DataMart as August 16 th The ethnic distributions for these fifteen colleges are depicted in Table 9. 14

15 College Modesto Junior College: Distance Education Survey Report Table 9: Colleges Responding to DE Survey that are Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Ethnic Distributions White Hispanic Race/Ethnicity African- American Asian/ Pacific Islander American- Indian 2 or More Races/ Unknown Chaffey 23.9% 43.1% 9.5% 10.2% 0.4% 12.8% Fresno City 26.2% 38.6% 8.2% 15.3% 1.0% 10.7% Gavilan 37.0% 34.0% 4.0% 7.1% 0.7% 17.2% Hartnell 18.2% 53.1% 2.6% 6.3% 0.5% 19.2% LA City 18.8% 42.5% 10.5% 19.0% 0.3% 9.0% Merced 33.4% 41.3% 4.7% 10.5% 1.0% 9.2% Modesto Junior 39.7% 30.2% 3.7% 7.6% 1.0% 17.9% Mt. San Jacinto 40.6% 28.6% 7.5% 6.5% 1.1% 15.7% Porterville 16.4% 52.2% 1.3% 3.6% 1.0% 25.5% Reedley 32.9% 45.6% 2.8% 7.3% 1.1% 10.3% San Joaquin Delta 29.0% 31.1% 10.8% 19.8% 1.0% 8.4% Santa Barbara City 51.2% 29.9% 2.7% 8.3% 0.7% 7.1% Sequoias 29.4% 42.3% 2.6% 4.9% 0.7% 20.0% Taft 36.3% 39.7% 4.8% 2.0% 1.2% 16.1% West Hills Coalinga 26.0% 51.3% 7.5% 6.7% 0.9% 7.5% West Hills Lemoore 33.9% 42.1% 7.9% 7.4% 1.1% 7.5% The Hispanic Serving Institution Peer College cohort Learning Management System selection is somewhat reflective of both the Statewide and larger Peer College cohort in its distribution; however, it appears that Moodle is increasing popular with this group whereas Blackboard is less so. The complete selection information and the respective distributions can be observed in Figure

16 Figure 12: What learning management system is used? Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Peer Colleges Blackboard 40.0% Moodle 26.7% Etudes 13.3% Etudes & Sakai 6.7% ecollege 6.7% Blackboard & Tegrity 6.7% The portrait of Distance Education structural organization is clearly changing as it is reduced. The picture of Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Peer College cohort portrays greater levels of administrative support than that of either the State of the Peer Colleges with the occurrence of Distance Education Coordinators jumping to 27% and Deans to 23%. Other, which includes Distance Education Supervisors, also increased along with Instructional Designers and Specialists; whereas, Instructional Technologists, Technical Support and Trainers/Facilitators decreased. The complete data is depicted in Figure

17 Figure 13: Colleges Responding to Distance Education (DE) Survey that are Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Other exludes clerical support & Student Workers ** 4% Other (Techs, Media Designer, DE Supervisor,) 19% Dean of DE (often with other duties) 23% Tech Support 8% DE Director 7% Instructional Technologists 4% DE Specialist 4% Instructional Deisgners 4% DE Coordinator 27% Closely examining technical services shows a further reduction in the types of Student Support offerings. Table 10 contains the list of those noted by Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Peer Colleges that were within the peer cohort. It appears that 60.0% of the colleges in this cohort offer four or more types of Student Technical Services. Table 10: Types of Student Technical Support Services Provision of Peer Colleges that are Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Student Technical Support Type Number of Colleges Percent of Colleges Helpdesk % % Phone % Online % Chat (lines or boards) % 24/ % FAQ (sessions or page) % Presidium % Etudes % Tutorials % Drop In Center % 17

18 Blackboard 1 6.7% Instructors 1 6.7% Office, Admin or Staff 1 6.7% n=15 The data again reveal that the majority or 60.0% of colleges in this cohort provide four or more services. The list of services and their percentage distributions can be observed in Figure 14. Figure 14: Peer College Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Student Technical Support Services Helpdesk 66.7% 66.7% Phone 60.0% Chat (lines or boards) Online 33.3% 33.3% 24/7 26.7% FAQ (sessions or page) 20.0% Drop In Center Tutorials Etudes Presidium 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% Office, Admin or Staff Instructors Blackboard 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% The top three Student Technical Services again remain constant, but with a third reorganization. With this cohort, is now the most prevalent, followed by Helpdesk, and then Phone. Further analysis of the data shows that 24/7 is the fourth most prominent Student Technical Support Service at the State level; whereas, it drops to 6 th after Chat and Online with the other two (created) cohorts. Analysis of the data also indicated that 73.3% of the colleges provide three or fewer Technical Support Services to Faculty. See Table 11 and Figure

19 Table 11: Types of Faculty Technical Support Services Provision of Peer Colleges that are Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Faculty Technical Support Type Number of Colleges Percent of Colleges Office, Admin or Staff % % Phone % 24/ % Trainings or Workshops % Helpdesk % Drop In Center % Presidium % Blackboard % Chat (lines or boards) 1 6.7% n=15 Figure 15: Peer College Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Student Technical Support Services Office, Admin or Staff 24/7 Phone Trainings or Workshops Drop In Center Helpdesk Blackboard Presidium Chat (lines or boards) Online 6.7% 6.7% 13.3% 13.3% 20.0% 20.0% 26.7% 33.3% 33.3% 46.7% 53.3% The Hispanic Serving Institution Peer Colleges all reported the number of Distance Education Sessions being taught at their institutions. As was the case with the Peer College cohort, the majority in this group indicated between 50 and 99 sessions; however, the percentage is 3.5% lower and the group is 5.6% higher. The detailed distributions are contained in Figure

20 Figure 16: Range of Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Peer College Distance Education Sessions Being Taught 33.3% 26.7% 20.0% 13.3% 6.7% The funding of Distance Education for the Hispanic Serving Institution Qualified Peer Colleges was reported as 92.9% from the General or District, 35.7% from Grants, and 7.1% were indicated as Release Time. 20