Post on 18-Dec-2014
description
transcript
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
OPEN EDUCATIONleadership summit
2014
Economic Models
Workshop PresentationGroup Leaders: Jason Pickavance (@jpickava) and Linda Williams Group Facilitator: Nate Angell (@xolotl)
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Workshop Participants (in seated order)
● Jason Pickavance (co-leader), Salt Lake Community College, Director of Educational Initiatives
● Clea Andreadis, Middlesex Community College, Associate Provost, Instruction and Assessment
● Ryan Hobbs, Salt Lake Community College, Director of eLearning● Linda Williams (co-leader), Tidewater Community College, Professor of Business
Administration● Kara Monroe, Associate Vice President, Academic Online Programs, Ivy Tech
Community College of Indiana● Peter Quigley, University of Hawaii, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
for Community Colleges● Karen Vignare, University of Maryland University College, Associate Provost,
Center for Innovation in Learning● Nate Angell (facilitator), Lumen Learning, Doorman● Randy Morales, Cerritos College, TAACCCT Grant Program Manager● David Wiley, Lumen Learning, CAO
2
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Overview of Issues
● Institutions need help understanding what models have worked to initiate and/or sustain OER initiatives at other institutions.
● Institutions come to the table at varying degrees of OER engagement. Models need to fit an institution’s current stage.
● Institutions have very different governance, finance, faculty, union, political, etc environments and histories. OER funding models need to fit local institutional particularities.
2
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Resource: An OER Economic Model Toolkit
● Preliminary Institutional Characteristics Considerations
● Models○ Course Fee○ Tuition Recovery○ External Funding○ New Entity (eg, College for America)
3
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Institutional Characteristics Considerations
Before exploring economic models for OER, institutions should consider local specifics that will help shape what economic models might fit best.
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
How does OER align with other institutional priorities? For example: OER and...
● Closing achievement gaps● Completion agenda● Lowering student costs● Saving/raising institutional revenue● Student success/At-risk students● What areas are you looking to enable with OER?
Specific disciplines? Entire programs? Coalition of interested faculty?
● What metrics/data will be able to help justify ongoing investment/success?
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
What is your phase of OER implementation?
● Seed● Grow/Scale● Sustain
● What is the right funding model for your current phase?
● What is the right funding model to support your next phase or ongoing sustenance?
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
What are the political realities of the structure of your institution?
● Top down?● Bottom up?● Unionization?● System or independent?
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
How standardized/centralized is your institution?
● At the institutional governance level?● At the discipline level?● At the course level?● At the section level?● At the instructor level?● At the pedagogical level?● At the outcomes level?● At the LMS/delivery level?
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
What is your current institutional funding model?
● FTE census?● FTE completing?● Performance funding?● Something else?
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
How does the money flow in you current environment?
Can you align/augment current flows to support OER? Will you have to establish a new flow?
● Tuition?● Financial aid?● Bookstore?● Fees?
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
What kind of funding do you know you can harness at your institution?
● Can you establish a fee?● Can you reallocate existing resources?● Can you access external funding?
○ Grants○ Government funding○ Foundation sources○ Bequests/contributions
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
OER Funding Model: Toolkit Structure
● Description● Example Institution & Contacts (Case Study)
○ Justification■ ROI to students/faculty/institution
○ Proposal & Approval○ Implementation○ Funding Flows & Processes○ Supporting Data/Evaluation○ Advantages○ Barriers/Objections
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: OER Fee at SLCC
● Description: $5 section-level fee attached to each open section.
● Example Institution: Salt Lake Community College● Justification: Lowering educational costs via
textbook affordability.● Proposal & Approval:
○ Department chair and participating faculty○ Scheduling (SLCC academic support under Provost)○ Budget Office (AVP Budget)○ Provost & Cabinet○ Board of Trustees
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: OER Fee at SLCC
● Implementation○ Depts forward open sections to central coordinator.
○ Coordinator judges each section to determine “openness” (not fauxpen).
■ Meets 5R to completely replace proprietary required materials with openly licensed (CC).
■ Departments/faculty judge curriculum quality.
○ College has to incur costs/show benefits to charge fee: spreadsheet to demonstrate future budget for fee use
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: OER Fee at SLCC
● Supporting Data/Evaluation○ Kaleidoscope learning data & student survey
● Advantages○ Consider established fees as models
■ Tech fees■ Online learning fees
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: OER Fee at SLCC
● Barriers/Objections○ Issue of fees in larger systems, loss of control, ensure fee
comes back to institution, ensure fee is unrestricted/purposed appropriately.
○ Ensure only benefiting students pay fee.
○ Course-level implementation would be easier to implement than section-level.
○ Lost bookstore revenue.
○ Is $5/enrollment enough? Formula to establish ceiling for fee.
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Description: Reallocating resources to support using OER so that in time institution sees more tuition revenue than it would without using OER.
● Example Institution: Tidewater CC Z Degree
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Justification○ Original justification: reduce student textbook costs.○ Additional justifications:
■ Higher retention at initial drop/tuition refund date.■ Higher retention at withdrawal date.■ Higher completion of courses.
● Tidewater drop rate: overall 8.2%; Z courses: 2.3%.
■ Higher persistence.■ Higher institutional performance?
■ Stretching institutional PD $ further (for faculty/staff taking OER courses rather than traditional).
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Proposal & Approval○ Daniel had idea for no cost degree.
○ Danel sold to Tidewater President. The higher up you get
support, the quicker you can move. Start as close to the
top as possible to reallocate existing resources (eg, $ for PD).
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Implementation○ “0 to Z in 12 months.”
○ Evaluated data to identify highest-enrollment program:
business (19K students), both required and elective courses.
○ Approached individual faculty members to lead each course.
○ Hired Lumen to identify content and manage licensing.
○ Empty placeholder in section number used to mark Tidewater Z courses in course schedule.
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Funding Flows & Processes○ Redirected existing PD $ to incent faculty.
○ Incented librarians to become OER experts; new position descriptions.
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Supporting Data/Evaluation○ Tidewater data shows that increased tuition revenue
higher than costs of delivering OER Z degree.○ All Z degree students surveyed via IRB.
○ Are there multiple factors in play at Tidewater that might affect outcomes?■ No other interventions, selections, etc.
■ Tidewater students: traditional did worse on OER
assessments, but OER students did just as well on proprietary assessments.
■ Which sections/courses/faculty have the highest enrollments and best retention?
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Advantages○ Student retention/success.○ Increase of instructor effectiveness.
○ Increase in instructor efficiency (doing the right things well).
○ Competitive advantage○ Bonus funding in formula funding states○ Improve quality: Related to performance funding models○ Support moves to lower-cost adjunct faculty
■ Anticipate & have a response to this “advantage”■ Already present in use of proprietary texts
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Barriers/Objections○ None?
6
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Additional Economic Models
● External Funding● New Entity (eg, College for America)● Others?
3
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Collaboration Opportunities & Next Steps
● Establish & publicize toolkit○ Possibility of online “wizards” to help users explore
tailored models.
● Augment toolkit structure● Augment existing model examples● Add more funding model examples
7
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Discussion + Q&A
● Comments?● Questions?● What did we miss?● What would you add?● Directions for further exploration?
8
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
OPEN EDUCATIONleadership summit
2014