AGENDA Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Technology and Data Issues Meeting #2 Research/Investigation

Transcription

1 AGENDA Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Technology and Data Issues Meeting #2 Research/Investigation August 28, :30 AM 12:30 PM or upon adjournment Web Ex: Phone Number: , Participant code: , then # 1. Opening Remarks and Meeting Guidelines Lauren Kemper, ISF Review purpose of meeting. Committee Members will be addressed in the order indicated on this agenda to allow for one speaker at a time. Questions and discussion will be held after each topic has been presented, with the Committee Members being addressed in alphabetical order. An open dialog will be held at the end of the meeting to allow for additional discussion, questions, and answers. 2. Introductions ISF and Committee Members Lauren Kemper, ISF Tammy Young, ISF Cyndy Loomis, ISF Dr. Michael Moore (Chair) Myron Pincomb (Vice Chair) Dr. Joel Hartman Don Muccino Paul O Brien Dr. Nancy McKee (Optional)

2 3. Review/Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes ISF and Committee Members See Attachment A: Committee Meeting #1 Minutes. 4. Research/Investigation for Topics See Attachment B: Research and Investigation Results. Topics Data Collection: Quality, Access, and Cost Components Collaborative Licensing of Resources and Technology Viability/Desirability of Common Technical Capabilities Sharing Information and Resources Use of Technological Trends for Program and Services Delivery Presenting Committee member Dr. Joel Hartman and Dr. Michael Moore Myron Pincomb and Don Muccino Paul O Brien Myron Pincomb Don Muccino and Paul O Brien Muccino O Brien Pincomb Hartman Moore O Brien Hartman Moore Muccino Pincomb Hartman Moore Muccino O Brien Hartman Moore Pincomb Discussion Order 5. LMS Survey Results Discussion Committee Members 6. Discussion of FLVC LBR Issues The Committee decided to review these issues individually and then discuss in detail during this scheduled meeting. Topics Database Record Clean up and Enhancement Video Streaming and Multimedia Dr. Moore Pincomb Dr. Hartman Muccino O Brien Dr. Moore Discussion Order

3 Resources Common Learning Infrastructure Pincomb Dr. Hartman Muccino O Brien Dr. Moore Pincomb Dr. Hartman Muccino O Brien 7. Review Outline of Final Report ISF and Committee Members See Attachment C: Final Report Outline. Discuss process to consolidate final report and weaving information together. 8. Educational Positioning System (EPS) Discussion Committee Members See Attachment D: EPS Discussion Paper. 9. Open Discussion ISF and Committee Members 10. Discussion of Next Assignment ISF 11. Closing Remarks, Action Items, and Adjournment ISF

4 TASK FORCE ON POSTSECONDARY ONLINE EDUCATION IN FLORIDA TECHNOLOGY AND DATA ISSUES COMMITTEE Meeting #1 Topic Definition/Plan of Action July 24, :30-3:30 PM MINUTES Task Force Charge: Recommend strategies for better coordinating services and online programs in the State University System and the Florida College System and, to the extent feasible, across other delivery systems to ensure state economic development needs and student demands are being met in an effective and cost-efficient manner. 1. Opening Remarks and Meeting Guidelines Lauren Kemper Lauren Kemper, ISF, opened the meeting with a review of its purpose, order for addressing Committee Members, questions and discussion, and open dialog. 2. Introduction Lauren Kemper Lauren Kemper, ISF, led roll call/introductions. The following were present: Lauren Kemper, ISF Tammy Young, ISF Cyndy Loomis, ISF Dr. Michael Moore (Chair) Myron Pincomb (Vice Chair) Dr. Joel Hartman Don Muccino Paul O Brien Dr. Nancy McKee DRAFT 3. Definition/Action Plans for Topics Committee members presented their definition/action plans for their topics as described below. Topic: Data Collection: Quality, Access, and Cost Components Presenting Committee Members: Dr. Joel Hartman and Dr. Michael Moore Page 1

5 Dr. Hartman and Dr. Moore presented an overview of their topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After they discussed their topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Don Muccino: Asked, will only aggregate data be collected, i.e., no personal information? o Dr. Hartman and Dr. Moore said yes. Needed clarification: Dr. Hartman and Dr. Moore will be defining the data and where it is maintained, but they will not be defining how to collect it. o Dr. Hartman and Dr. Moore indicated they would be doing additional work regarding the flow of data. Paul O Brien: Mentioned that developing a data dictionary is a good idea. Representatives from the Florida College System need to be involved to help develop shared definitions. Mr. O Brien also liked the focus on analytics as an opportunity to collect data regarding online learning to drive further innovation. Myron Pincomb: Mentioned that it is good to start with the end in mind, i.e., designing the process at the beginning to provide the analytics desired. Topic: Collaborative Licensing of Resources and Technology Presenting Committee Members: Myron Pincomb and Don Muccino DRAFT Mr. Pincomb and Mr. Muccino presented an overview of their topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After they discussed their topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Dr. Joel Hartman: Stated that future costs, such as e-textbooks, the Orange Grove, University Press, etc., should be part of this discussion. o As a response, Mr. Pincomb asked for contacts within the institutions for further information on what is considered content. Committee Members will provide contact information to Lauren Kemper, who will disseminate to the entire Committee. o Mr. Muccino indicated he already provided contact information for individuals within the Florida Virtual Campus regarding Orange Grove and e-resources. Page 2

6 Paul O Brien: Discussed that there are potential cost savings based upon the entity that is ultimately created. Some decisions need to be made such as, will individual schools or a third party award degrees? Does the Committee recommend incentivizing institutions to move to similar Learning Management System (LMS) platforms? How would collaborative licensing work? Academic stakeholders may have concerns. o Dr. Joel Hartman suggested to the Committee that considering the standardization of ERP systems is out of scope, as this would be a huge and expensive undertaking. He asked, regarding a shared LMS, what would be the cost structure? Does the state make an initial investment or is the cost shared completely by the institutions? Paul O Brien believed the ERP should be included because the Task Force is currently brainstorming. Mentioned that other states have implemented a single ERP and LMS successfully. With each institution having its own system, there is a problem with multiple interfaces relying on different technology. This Task Force has an opportunity to explore what may be ideal. Mr. O Brien stated that if the state truly wants to be a leader in this area, then this needs to be explored further. o Dr. Joel Hartman pointed out that other states that have implemented statewide systems also receive state-level funding for the endeavor. Paul O Brien reiterated his feeling that it would be easier to implement sweeping changes if the institutions used a common ERP. Dr. Joel Hartman: As Florida enters the big data arena, the institutions could facilitate the sharing of student data. DRAFT Cyndy Loomis: Relayed a plan from another working group to identify both short and long-term recommendations. This group was encouraged to do the same. Topic: Viability/Desirability of Common Technical Capabilities Presenting Committee Member: Paul O Brien Mr. O Brien presented an overview of his topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After he discussed his topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Page 3

7 Dr. Michael Moore: Appreciated the discussion regarding a single ERP option for the state. Agreed it would make it easier to collect data, but pointed out the political costs could be high. o Mr. O Brien mentioned the state could look at cloud-based solutions for statewide services. Dr. Moore relayed experience with Georgia where savings and the ability to use programs were superior to Florida s. Don Muccino: Agreed the ERP may not be feasible, but felt the common LMS should be explored. Pointed out a history of shared environments in Florida as it related to a shared library system. Stated FLVC has requested funding for a pilot LMS. His view was that this should be available for those schools wanting to opt-in. o Mr. O Brien discussed that as technology changes, there may be a way to explore what the return on investment could be that would make these shared scenarios more attractive to the state. He reiterated the point was worth investigating. Mr. Muccino agreed he did not want to preclude the common ERP; he does not feel it is feasible at this time. Myron Pincomb: Felt the Task Force should examine both the ERP and the LMS. Topic: Sharing Information and Resources Presenting Committee Member: Myron Pincomb Mr. Pincomb presented an overview of his topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After he discussed his topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: DRAFT Dr. Joel Hartman: Felt that he, Mr. Pincomb, and Dr. Moore need to have additional discussion on their topics, as there may be some overlap. o Dr. Moore agreed. Paul O Brien: Stated if performance-based funding became reality, then there would be a huge opportunity to share resources. Topic: Use of Technological Trends for Program and Services Delivery Presenting Committee Members: Don Muccino and Paul O Brien Page 4

8 Mr. Muccino and Mr. O Brien presented an overview of their topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After they discussed their topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Dr. Hartman: Suggested using Educause s Emerging Technology Committee as a resource as well as information from SACS. 4. LMS Survey Discussion Committee Members Ms. Kemper provided a high-level overview of the survey results to date. Committee members were provided an opportunity to offer comments concerning the online survey. Discussion: Dr. Joel Hartman: Stated it was a positive sign that users were providing specific information. Lauren Kemper: Explained that the survey will close Friday, July 26. ISF will clean and analyze the data and look for trends and themes. ISF will send out findings, as well as the raw data. Paul O Brien: Questioned whether the number of sections in the LMS survey question referred to only online sections or a crossover between traditional and online sections. o Dr. Hartman answered that all course sections should be included in the LMS numbers, but the number of students should only be online students. Mr. O Brien believed it might be difficult to reconcile the numbers in this way. o Dr. Hartman stated that the survey results would tell it differently. Mr. O Brien inquired about the purpose of the survey. o Ms. Loomis stated the purpose was to determine if economies of scale could be obtained by using a centralized LMS and the institutions desire for this type of change. DRAFT 5. Open Discussion ISF and Committee Members Cyndy Loomis described an additional task assigned to the Task Force to include reviewing and providing feedback on the Legislative Budget Request submitted by the Page 5

9 Florida Virtual Campus. The following three items were referred to the Technology Committee. Refer to the LBR for further information. Database Record Clean up and Enhancement Video Streaming and Multimedia Resources Common Learning Infrastructure The group decided to review these issues individually and then discuss in detail during the next Committee meeting. 6. Discussion of Next Assignment ISF The next committee meeting will be Wednesday, August 28, 2013, 10:30 AM 12:30 PM. Each Committee Member will prepare a 2-3 page synopsis on the research conducted on his or her topic. Additional supporting materials can be provided. At this meeting, the Committee Members may also want to present what strategies and recommendation they are considering. ISF is revising the previously sent template (Exhibit B) and will resend to the Committee. 7. Closing Remarks, Action Items, and Adjournment ISF ISF reiterated the following action items: Committee Members should send contact information (or any other information) to Lauren Kemper for distribution. The next Committee meeting will also address the LBR items described above. ISF will revise the template for Exhibit B to include current state, short term, and long-term recommendations. The final report will address high-level assessment of current state of Florida, shortterm, and long-term recommendations. DRAFT Additional Discussion: Dr. Nancy McKee brought up the discussion of online programs and data collection and if the programs were being reported. Don Muccino indicated that the collection of program data was already part of the legislative language passed this year. Don Muccino and Dr. Nancy McKee agreed to discuss this further after the meeting. (Note: Subsequent investigation after the meeting resulted in the conclusion that the appropriate information will be collected by FLVC as part of its legislative charge. Page 6

10 Topics Attachment B: Research and Investigation Results Presenting Committee Member Comments Data Collection: Quality, Access, and Cost Components Collaborative Licensing of Resources and Technology Viability/Desirability of Common Technical Capabilities Sharing Information and Resources Use of Technological Trends for Program and Services Delivery Dr. Joel Hartman and Dr. Michael Moore Myron Pincomb and Don Muccino Paul O Brien Myron Pincomb Don Muccino and Paul O Brien ETA 8/23/13 Complete Complete Complete ETA 8/19/13

11 Exhibit B Meeting #2 Research/Investigation Each Committee Member will prepare a 2-3 page synopsis on the research conducted on the topic. Additional supporting materials can be provided. At this meeting, the Committee Member may also want to present what strategies and recommendations he/she is considering. Committee Members can use the following template in preparing information. Name Assigned Issue Results of Investigation and Research Summary of Current State Potential Short-Term Recommendations and Strategies Under Consideration Myron Pincomb Collaborative Licensing of Resources and Technologies 2-3 pages summarizing findings, along with references for additional information. 1-2 pages summarizing the current state of in-scope items concerning within Florida. Recommendation #1 Explore if the interactions and sharing of knowledge occurs more in online or in institutional settings? Recommendation #2 Explore which is more constructive with regard to learning new information? Which do the students prefer? Potential Long-Term Recommendations and Strategies Under Consideration Recommendation #1 Recommendation #2 Collaborative licensing of resources and technologies involves the content, curriculum, platforms and data collection tools that are necessary to give each student at any state university a consistent education throughout the state of Florida.

12 Results of Investigation and Research Collaborative licensing of online education technology involves the streamlining of content, curriculum, platforms and data collection tools necessary to give each student at any state university a consistent education. Collaborative licensing can be established by the use of Open Educational Resources (OER), educational materials that use an open license to share, access and reuse educational materials. An elevated standard of collaborating, i.e. streamlining educational material produces a higher chance of consistency in the quality of online education, while reducing the costs and time each instructor applies to construct innovative instructional material. The use of OER would work to reduce the financial constraints that each Florida State Institution struggles with each year. OER facilitates statewide consistency with regard to online education processes. This results in reduced costs and overall improvement in the online education system. OER Increase Consistency Financial Benefit A case study of North Carolina State University outlined the initial hardships and gains of developing and implementing an ERP system on the PeopleSoft platforms. The initial intent was to develop a system to replace their current HR system and added the Financial and Student modules at a discounted bundled price. The total time from conversation to full implementation of all modules was 13 years. The University tried to implement HR and Financials at the same time but failed because of a lack of user training. This created major audit problems, which threatened the University s flexible spending authority. 2 The lessons learned allowed for a smoother implementation of the Student Modules years later. In 2005, PeopleSoft released a more stable version of the Student Module and NCSU began implementation. By now the IT department was mature and was more apt to running a smoother operation. The final touches were made in 2009 for the Student Records functionality which was a major improvement for faculty and students. 2 The article further explains how system security was established and concluded that strong IT governance is critical to being able to complete an implementation. 2 Furthermore, because of the high costs of the system, UNC has expressed interest in partnering with NCSU to reduce the cost of IT system management.

13 One of the most popular topics with regard to information and resource sharing within the LMS and Blackboard are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). They are growing fast within the Blackboard LMS with 15 new Universities and Colleges participating and a total 24 MOOC offerings on the Blackboard Learn LMS. 3 Blackboard has altered its software licensing to maintain competition with the increasing popularity of MOOCs. Katie Blot, president of education services at Blackboard, said the platforms allow students to see firsthand how classes are run. MOOCs may provide a consistent base for online learning, especially with the widespread use of Blackboard in the United States. The fact that most MOOC s do not require fees, prerequisites, predefined participation, or formal accreditation, it creates a truly open education experience, requiring only an internet connection. 3 Some of the top universities in the country such as MIT, Harvard and Stanford are exploring these MOOC s. They are discovering their impact on education, especially in computer science. The idea of being instructed by high profile Universities on content they specialize in, only makes MOOC s more desirable for students. Allowing other students and Universities to use professors lectures / instructions across a list of institutions could reduce administrative costs and increase academic intelligence. Universities are currently using the MOOC as a way to learn the didactic material, while using class time for hands-on learning activities. These shared resources have shown improvement in the active learning process. Auto-graded questions that further explain concepts during the instruction provide increased information retention. Open online learning is not only reserved for students, but also for the Professional Development of our teachers. At MiraCosta College in Oceanside CA, a program for online teaching certification created a model for better preparation with a free, open, year-long online class focused on pedagogy and tool choice. 4 The participants who earned the certification indicated an overwhelming achievement of personal learning goals, class community development and increased confidence to build online classes around their pedagogy. 4 A recent study: Online College Students in 2013, records 32% of college students were taking at least one online course and 3 million students were enrolled in fully online programs in The growth suggests an increase in desire for convenient education. The days are gone of discrediting graduates because of an online degree. Results of this study, 44% improved their employment standing with 45% and 36% having salary increases and promotions within the 12 months after graduation. 5 Data supports the localization of the online students, in that almost two-thirds of students enroll in Universities within close proximity to their residence. Business studies are the most popular among undergraduate and graduate students. It is not a surprise that the data

14 shows online graduate degrees paid higher dividends in promotions and pay increases. The study also showed more achieved master s degrees over the online programs than any other degree or certificate. In conclusion, this study may further indicate that employers do not base hiring efforts on in-class room graduates, or that having such a degree improves your chances of success after college. Current State: A questionnaire has been sent to IT directors of Florida Colleges. Upon receiving the responses, further explanation of the current state of this issue will be included. References: 1. Sheridan, K. (2013). Blackboard MOOC gains 15 More Colleges. Information week.com 2. Bradford, M. (2011). North Carolina State University: Implementing ERP Student Modules. Issues in Accounting Education, doi: /iace Will Massive Open Online Courses Change How We Teach?. (2012). Communications of the ACM, 55(8), doi: / Lane, L. M. (2013). An Open, Online Class to Prepare Faculty to Teach Online. Journal of Educators Online, 10 (1) 5. Aslanian, C. B. (2013) Online College Students 2013: Comprehensive Data on Demands and Preferences. The Learning House, Inc. & Education Dynamics

15 Exhibit B Meeting #2 Research/Investigation Each Committee Member will prepare a 2-3 page synopsis on the research conducted on the topic. Additional supporting materials can be provided. At this meeting, the Committee Member may also want to present what strategies and recommendations he/she is considering. Committee Members can use the following template in preparing information. SAMPLE Name Assigned Issue Results of Investigation and Research Paul O Brien Common Technical Infrastructure Common ERP system Florida s colleges and universities run a wide variety of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems. The FCS schools alone run nearly half a dozen different varieties. This lack of standardization has caused numerous issues that have negatively impacted the state s ability to effectively and efficiently deliver new and important services. The development of a statewide distance learning common market where individual colleges and universities can opt in may be better served by a common ERP solution. The potential for a cloud-based ERP solution should be considered. The use of ondemand software or software as a service (SaaS)

16 and its utility computing cousin s infrastructure as a service (IaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS) may provide a robust solution that can better serve Florida citizens in their efforts to earn online degrees. The ability to implement new statewide electronic initiatives are often complicated and delayed by the requirement to provide multiple interface solutions instead of just one. Having a common ERP platform greatly simplifies integration efforts of new electronic initiatives. Simplifying integration also accelerates the implementation and improves system reliability. The recent efforts to implement SB 2150 are an example of this issue. There are multiple issues and limitations with the technology used to provide the initial solution for SB The FLVC catalog will list the online courses offered at schools, but it will not provide students with real time information regarding the availability of a seat in the online courses. The different registration processes and systems used by the schools will add to student confusion. Schools

17 will depend on old technology to communicate via the FASTER system and will experience delays measured in days or weeks in receiving responses that are critical for complying with deadlines required for federal financial aid. This complexity could be virtually eliminated with a common ERP approach. Some of the potential benefits might include: Currently, each institution must maintain its own ERP systems support staff. At a minimum, using a common ERP system broadly opens the potential for resource sharing. Currently, each institution must acquire, maintain and house ERP hardware (if self-hosted). Having a common ERP system makes it easier and more efficient for institutions to share hardware and maintenance responsibilities. Again, cloud delivery might be ideal. Currently, each institution must

18 come up with and maintain its own DR Plan. Moving to a common state provided ERP cloud service would allow DR responsibilities to be shifted away from the individual institutions. Currently, each consortial group and/or institution must develop its own solution for new state reporting requirements. Having a common ERP would allow for just ONE solution to be created for ALL public higher education institutions. Leverage buying power for IT infrastructure, internet, telecommunications and disaster recovery services. Common Learning Management System Although all public institutions are part of either the Florida College System or State University System as with the ERP each institution has chosen the instructional and technological solutions that it deemed best for their individual

19 campuses. As a result, there are as many LMS solutions adopted as there are offerings from both the commercial providers and open source offerings. However as the competition from both private colleges and other consortia continues to increase, it may be beneficial to develop common offerings, and as such, the potential adoption of a single LMS solution for the entire FCS/SUS should be investigated. Several other state delivery systems such as Georgia, Tennessee and Wisconsin have already adopted the single system-wide LMS approach and may provide guidance as this option is considered. As Florida determines the best approach in offering distance learning instruction to its residents, the Florida Virtual Campus seems to present a very robust and affordable option whereby the State supports the development of world class support services and the individual institutions provide programs and courses that can be offered on a statewide basis. This would leverage the creative and instructional expertise of the entire system whom have been developing

20 and delivering online courses now for almost 20 years. In such a model the consideration of a single LMS solution deserves careful consideration. The potential for reduced costs, common help desk support, development of training for faculty, and a more seamless solution for students as they take courses from more than one institution is very attractive. However, the balancing and maintaining of local institutional autonomy must be balanced against these perceived benefits. Summary of Current State Potential Short-Term Recommendations and Strategies Under Consideration Potential Long-Term Recommendations and Strategies Under Consideration Example: 1-2 pages summarizing the current state of in-scope items concerning data collection quality, access, and cost within Florida. Example: Recommendation #1 Recommendation #2 Example: Recommendation #1 Recommendation #2

21 Exhibit B Meeting #2 Research/Investigation Each Committee Member will prepare a 2-3 page synopsis on the research conducted on the topic. Additional supporting materials can be provided. At this meeting, the Committee Member may also want to present what strategies and recommendations he/she is considering. Committee Members can use the following template in preparing information. Name Myron Pincomb Assigned Issue Results of Investigation and Research Summary of Current State Potential Short-Term Recommendations and Strategies Under Consideration Potential Long-Term Recommendations and Strategies Under Consideration Sharing Information and Resources 2-3 pages summarizing findings, along with references for additional information. 1-2 pages summarizing the current state of in-scope items concerning within Florida. Recommendation #1 Understand what Universities are currently doing with the information collection of online students use patterns. Recommendation #2 Identify our current PBF model and how to use performance and salary data to better understand employers needs. DRAFT Recommendation #1 Implement a suggested plan of action to improve student interaction within the LMS. Recommendation #2 Sharing information and resources pertains to the exchanging and gathering of student/user data and best practices through technology-based information, statistics and/or strategies with the use of content, curriculum, learning platforms and data collection tools across state universities.

22 Understanding Student e-learning Usage Data There is a proposed architecture for understanding and benefitting from student e- learning usage patterns set out by the Minnesota State University. A recent article from the Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings in 2012, explains how the information generated by the use of technologies can be used to help both the instructor and student benefit from course content. LMS content management allows for the capture of student behaviors, such as log-ins, discussion productivity, and assignment access and exam completion times. Some learning platforms can gather IP addresses and see other websites viewed while logged in. This data collection is within browser and LMS security protocols and is readily available to any web-based application. The basis of the architecture is a detailed activity log of how the student is progressing and interacting and is tracked at the page-level. Benchmarking is used to measure the progress and is matched with the expectations of the instructor. Misalignments between the benchmark and the student activity can drive a continuous improvement process for the curriculum, especially when misalignments are seen repeatedly and are able to be corrected. 1 The article outlines a user-rating model through electronic means and further describes how this model can be put to use in the University system. Personal Learning Environments Saadatmand and Kumpulainen (2013) discussed Personal Learning Environments (PLE), which is a personalized way of learning that is student centered and guided versus institutionalized learning. The PLE style of learning has uncovered new avenues of gaining information due to the various tools and resources available via online education systems and the World Wide Web. The article discussed the PLE experience, as well as the various processes of interaction and sharing of knowledge that are involved, which makes way for an innovative shared information tool. The authors noted that this type of learning often led to the unintended discovery of new knowledge, which is a concept in online learning that is being explored. The term Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) was also discussed due to its relevance in this type of learning environment. A PLN comprises groups of online learners and their interactions as well as connections via social media. The authors noted that online courses offer the "autonomy, diversity, openness, and connectedness, " that many online learners find valuable. 2 However, the PLE notion of learning has not been fully integrated into the formal education settings. DRAFT

23 Performance Based Funding Experimental Performance Based Funding (PBF) has been around since the 60 s and 70 s, but is now becoming the status quo. PBF for higher education is becoming increasingly popular with the demands from the students, the state and the economy. The prominent change in performance funding is the focus shift away from the needs of the institution to student-centered allocation methods based on measures of success. 3 The old systems were based on student enrollments with the new system looks at completion rates. Florida was one of the pioneers for performance based funding model under the old enrollment methodology. Now the system measures completions and refers not only graduates but also certificates, apprenticeships and student plan completions. This new methodology carries the old principles of equity, responsiveness and adequacy with new variables of success points, momentum points and completion. The article explains how each state uses a slightly different formula to establish their funding. Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas use a formula based on credit hour completion and Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Washington are initiating a system that relies on momentum. Momentum points, a.k.a success points, are intended to measure the significant steps that students take toward higher education achievement. 3 Each states momentum points are slightly different because of varying institution missions and goals. It is interesting to note that Tennessee is taking on a more radical formula where the total momentum points from the institution were multiplied by the average SREB institution salary, added to a fixed cost amount, and added to performance funding to get the total allocation for the institution. 3 Some states receive additional funding for STEM enrollments and graduates. This article further explains current best practices through guiding principles in a performance funding system. Texas and Florida have extensive databases that make reporting possible for first-year salaries of graduates by field of study in its public institutions. This report will become useful as a meaningful performance indicator once it s accuracy improves. DRAFT

24 References: 1. Kaliski, J.A., Booker, Q. E, & Schumann, P. (2012). A Proposed Architecture for Dynamic Learning Environments Based On Student Activity and Learning Styles. Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings, 7(1), Kumpulainen, K., Saadatmnand, M., (2012). Content Aggregation and Knowledge In a Personal Learning Environment: Serendipity In Open Online Networks. 3. McKeown-Moak, M. P. (2013). The New Performance Funding in Higher Education. Education Considerations, 40(2), 3-12 DRAFT

25 Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Report Outline Attachment C: Task Force Charge and Final Report Outline Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Charge Recommend strategies for better coordinating services and online programs in the State University System and Florida College System and, to the extent feasible, across other delivery systems to ensure state economic development needs and student demands are being met in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Such recommendations are to include, but not be limited to: a. Goals for online education and related accountability measures for tracking performance on those goals; b. Improved data collection at the institutional and system levels. Such data collection must, at a minimum, be adequate for tracking performance on the accountability measures recommended above and shall include applicable cost components involved in the development and delivery of distance learning courses, as well as student feedback regarding the delivery and support of online education; c. Best practices that will lead to quality credit and noncredit programs; d. Viability/desirability of common technical capabilities; e. Alignment of online programs with identified State economic development needs and student demands; f. Raising awareness of online courses and programs to different segments of the market (marketing); g. Providing student support services in a collaborative, cost-efficient manner; h. Effective use of technological innovations (mobile devices, cloud computing, social networks, etc.); i. Providing faculty support services and encouraging inter-institutional faculty collaboration in course development; j. Development and expanded use of e-textbooks and other electronic materials; k. Collaborative licensing of resources and technology; l. Collaborative efforts related to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and to competency-based online courses, in cooperation with the Department of Education; and m. Sharing information and resources. ISF Page 1

26 Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Report Outline Report Outline 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Task Force Charge (include a matrix to align charge with report sections) 1.2. Project Approach 1.3. Summary of Findings Current State Emerging Trends Next Steps Future Goals 2. Goals and Performance Measures (content to be provided by the Academic Affairs Committee) a. Goals for online education and related accountability measures for tracking performance on those goals 2.1. Current State 2.2. Next Steps 2.3. Future Goals 3. Alignment with State Needs (content to be provided by Ms. Rust) e. Alignment of online programs with identified State economic development needs and student demands; 3.1. Current State 3.2. Next Steps 3.3. Future Goals 4. Best Practices c. Best practices that will lead to quality credit and noncredit programs 4.1. in Academic Affairs (content to be provided by Dr. Bryan) Current State Next Steps Future Goals 4.2. In Faculty Support Services (Dr. Wachter) Current State Next Steps Future Goals 4.3. In Student Support Services (Ms. Millender) Current State ISF Page 2

27 Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Report Outline Next Steps Future Goals 5. MOOCs and Competency-Based Courses (content to be provided by Dr. Wartzok, Ms. Balla) l. Collaborative efforts related to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and to competency-based online courses, in cooperation with the Department of Education 5.1. Current State 5.2. Next Steps 5.3. Future Goals 6. Faculty Development i. Providing faculty support services and encouraging inter-institutional faculty collaboration in course development 6.1. Collaboration of Course Development (Dr. McCollough/Ms. Balla) Current State Next Steps Future Goals 6.2. Cost-Effective Faculty Support Services (Dr. Northrup) Current State Next Steps Future Goals 7. Electronic Resource Development (content to be provided by Ms. Kooi) j. Development and expanded use of e-textbooks and other electronic materials 7.1. Current State 7.2. Next Steps 7.3. Future Goals 8. Collaborative/Cost Effective Student Services (Dr. Rollo) g. Providing student support services in a collaborative, cost-efficient manner 8.1. Current State 8.2. Next Steps 8.3. Future Goals ISF Page 3

28 Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Report Outline 9. Raising Awareness (content to be provided by Mr. Blazejewski) f. Raising awareness of online courses and programs to different segments of the market (marketing) 9.1. Current State 9.2. Next Steps 9.3. Future Goals 10. Improved Data Collection (content to be provided by Drs. Hartman and Moore) b. Improved data collection at the institutional and system levels. Such data collection must, at a minimum, be adequate for tracking performance on the accountability measures recommended above and shall include applicable cost components involved in the development and delivery of distance learning courses, as well as student feedback regarding the delivery and support of online education Current State Next Steps Future Goals 11. Collaborative Licensing (content to be provided by Mr. Pincomb, Mr. Muccino) k. Collaborative licensing of resources and technology Current State Next Steps Future Goals 12. Common Technical Capabilities (content to be provided by Mr. O Brien) d. Viability/desirability of common technical capabilities Current State Next Steps Future Goals 13. Technological Innovations and Trends (content to be provided by Mr. Muccino and Mr. O Brien) h. Effective use of technological innovations (mobile devices, cloud computing, social networks, etc.) ISF Page 4

29 Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Report Outline Current State Next Steps Future Goals 14. Sharing Information and Resources (content to be provided by Mr. Pincomb, Ms. Balla/Dr. McCollough, and Ms. McFarland) m. Sharing information and resources Current State Next Steps Future Goals 15. Conclusion/Recommendations Overview Next Steps Future Goals 16. Appendix A CS/HB 7029 Review (content to be provided by Dr. Wartzok) 17. Appendix B FLVC LBR Review (content to be provided by the following) LBR Request Title and Primary Task Force Member Advising Modernization (Ms. Millender) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics STEM) E-Resources (Dr. Wartzok) Video Streaming and Multimedia Resources (Technology and Data Issues Committee) Common Learning Infrastructure (Technology and Data Issues Committee) Degree Connect (Dr. Northrup) EPS (Faculty and Student Support Services Committee) Database Record Cleanup and Enhancement (Technology and Data Issues Committee) Task Force Recommendation (Endorsed, Endorsed with Comments, Not Endorsed) Comments 18. Appendix C LBR Recommendations ISF Page 5

30 Attachment D: EPS Discussion Paper TASK FORCE ON POSTSECONDARY ONLINE EDUCATION IN FLORIDA FACULTY AND STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE Florida Virtual Campus Legislative Budget Request Educational Positioning System At its meeting on July 24 th, the Faculty and Student Support Services Committee was asked to review and provide input on three of the Florida Virtual Campus (FLVC) budget request items. The Educational Position System (EPS) topic (under the Next-Generation Academic and Student Support Services Development LBR item) generated much discussion and several issues/concerns were identified. An overview of the LBR request is provided below, followed by the Committee s discussion points. LBR Item Next Generation Academic and Student Support Services Development FLVC would create a development and implementation plan for various accelerated degree strategies. These may include competency based education, prior learning assessment, MOOCs, personalized learning environments, non traditional terms, rolling start dates, and institutional/system level partnerships with third parties. Included in this plan would be two programs specifically proposed by the FLVC Members Council on Distance Learning and Student Services: Degree Connect and the Educational Positioning System (EPS). EPS: FLVC could serve as the central facilitator via both high tech and high touch means of a Florida student s ability to assemble all the courses necessary from all state institutions to complete any online program (degree or certificate). FLVC would offer the student a centralized concierge service to help the student plot the most efficient path through the degree program by composing a list of potential courses in the online catalog from all institutions and recommending the shortest route. Like a Global Positioning System device, the Educational Positioning System (EPS) would allow a student to select a destination (degree/certificate) and receive a program map of courses from all institutions that can be taken to complete a degree or certificate. This EPS would leverage Florida s common course numbering system so that students never need to wait for the classes they need to progress in their programs of choice. The plan could include recommendations for: Advanced academic analytics that provide self help services for students to create their own maps. High touch staff advisors who can be available to work directly with students on the phone and via chat to counsel them about their educational goals and plans to achieve them. A one stop shopping model that can allow students to select and register for courses directly from within the FLVC online clearinghouse. Policies associated with all state institutions agreeing to accept all course credits completed under an EPS program map, including admission standards and differences between colleges and universities. Potential involvement of ICUF institutions.

31 Incorporation of key stepladder credentials, where students could earn interim credentials such as certificates and associate s degrees. These stepladder credentials would help to mitigate issues associated with students stopping out, providing them with at least some credential that can be used to pursue or improve employment. The plan would provide a strategic roadmap for the implementation of these and other strategies that can be leveraged across the sector to enhance flexibility for students, improve retention, reduce excess credit hours, and ultimately reduce time to degree. Discussion The Committee discussed that although this LBR item only calls for a roadmap project to study the concept of a statewide EPS, a review of this request requires input from a broader audience than is represented on this Committee. The Committee felt that its review of the EPS topic would require input beyond its reach and that a sufficient review could not be accomplished within the timeframe available to the Task Force. The Committee indicated that academic provosts, institutional financial aid offices, and student services offices would need to be involved because of the extensive complexities and scope of the EPS. Issues were raised regarding what institution would grant the final degree, how this process would fit within SACS accreditation, and how a student s financial aid would be processed and impacted. The Committee also discussed the fact that this LBR was originally recommended by the FLVC Members Council on Distance Learning and Student Services, approved by the FLVC Board of Directors, and would ultimately require approval by the Board of Governors. They felt that this process may give the EPS LBR issue the vetting that is needed. In general, the Committee felt that reviewing this LBR was outside of its scope and mission and that it would not be able to provide sufficient review. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommended that this LBR request be reviewed by a larger audience than just the Academic and Student Services Committee to include academic provosts, institutional financial aid offices, and student services offices.