© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Using Sloan-C Quality Scorecard & Accreditation Standards as...

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D.

Using Sloan-C Quality Scorecard & Accreditation Standards as

Administration Tools

Dr. Anthony Piña, Dr. Larry Bohn & Nina Martinez

Sullivan University System

Louisville, KY


Objectives

• Discuss common challenges facing DE programs

• Compare & contrast SACS-COC guidelines & Sloan-C scorecard

• Use both tools for evaluating DE programs


Sullivan University

• 50th anniversary• KY’s largest Private U.• 6,000 students

– 1,000 fully online– 3,000 hybrid

• 45+ online programs• 450+ online courses• 150 faculty


Online Enrollment Growth

Source: Babson Research & Sloan-C

Total H.E. Online %

2002 16.61 million 1.60 million 9.6

2003 16.91 1.97 11.7

2004 17.27 2.33 13.5

2005 17.49 3.18 18.2

2006 17.76 3.49 19.6

2007 18.25 3.94 21.6

2008 19.10 4.61 24.1

2009 19.52 5.58 28.6

2010 19.64 6.14 31.3

Avg. H.E. Total Growth

2.1%

Avg. H.E. Online Growth

18.3%


Distance Learning Effectiveness

• Over 80 years of studies have tended to find no significant difference

– Latest DOE meta analysis shows DE advantages

– No research to support that online learning is inferior

www.nosignificantdifference.orgwww.ed.gov


Existing Tools & Rubrics

• Evaluation tools focus on instructional design

• Do not evaluate programs and administration

• Provide little guidance for administrators & leaders


SACS-COC Guidelines

• Responding to needs– Address concerns about

DE– Provide guidance for its

members– Put the Higher Ed Act into

practice• Policy & Guidelines

– July 2009 (rev. Jun 2010)


Sloan-C Quality Scorecard

• Responding to needs– Calls for accountability– Need for an industry

standard– Measure & report on

quality internally & externally

• Quality Scorecard– March 2011


SACS-COC Guidelines

• Definitions– Correspondence Ed– Distance Ed

• Online student identity verification

• Institutional mission• Curriculum & instruction


SACS-COC Guidelines

• Faculty• Institution effectiveness • Library & learning

resources• Student services • Facilities & finances



• 70 indicators of quality– Evaluate & quantify

strengths & weaknesses• Results can be used for

– Program improvement– Strategic planning– Preparation for

accreditation



• Institutional support• Technology support• Course development

and instructional design• Course structure• Teaching and learning



• Social and student engagement

• Faculty support• Student support• Evaluation and

assessment


The Key to Success

• “Academic support services are appropriate and specifically related to distance & correspondence education”

– SACS Distance & Correspondence Education Policy Statement


Student-Centric Focus

Online Student

Sullivan University

System

Sullivan University

Global e-Learning


Global e-Learning

Admissions Financial Planning

Student Academic Services

Re-Entry Coordinator

Instructional Technology

Faculty

Administration


Administration

• “The institution has put in place a governance structure to enable effective and comprehensive decision making related to distance learning”– Sloan-C Institutional Support #1

Administration


Admissions & Financial Planning

• “Students receive (or have access to) information about programs, including admission requirements, tuition and fees, books and supplies, technical and proctoring requirements, and student support services prior to admission and course registration” – Sloan-C Student Support #4

Financial Planning

Admissions



• “Student support personnel are available to address student questions, problems, bug reporting, and complaints”– Sloan-C Student Support #6



Re-Entry Coordinator

• Advise re-entering students • Not addressed by SACS or Sloan-CRe-Entry

Coordinator


Instructional Design & Technology

• “There is consistency in course development for student retention and quality”– Sloan-C Course Development &

Instructional Design #8

Instructional Technology


Online Faculty

• “Curriculum development is a core responsibility for faculty”– Sloan-C Course Development &

Instructional Design #12

Faculty


How do we compare nationally?


How do we compare nationally?

• Superior in 23 of 26 measures– Statistically significant in 14 measures

• Equivalent in two measures– Billing & payment convenience– Student assignments defined in syllabus– Two of our “top six”

• Below in just one measure– Tutoring services readily available (significant)– English, accounting & medical coding tutors

now available


Met Your Expectations? - 2011

Wor

se th

an I

expe

cted

Wha

t I e

xpec

ted

Bette

r tha

n I e

xpec

ted

Quit

e a

bit b

ette

r

Muc

h be

tter

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

5%

21%

26%

14%

32%

8%

25% 25%

15%

23%

SullivanNational


Overall Satisfaction - 2011

Dissatis-fied

Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0%2%

14%

40% 41%

8%5%

11%

38%35%

SullivanNational


Would You Enroll Again? - 2011

No Maybe no

Don't know

Maybe yes

Probably Definitely0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 0%

6% 7%

23%

59%

5% 3%6% 7%

27%

49%

SullivanNational


Putting the Pieces Together

• Each provides a piece of the puzzle– SACS more institutional– Sloan-C more

programmatic/course• Start with SACS• Fill in the gaps with Sloan-C


Questions??

SACS Distance Education Policeshttp://www.sacscoc.org/policies.asp

Sloan-C Quality Scorecardhttp://sloanconsortium.org/quality_scoreboard_online_program


Using Sloan-C Quality Scorecard & Accreditation Standards as

Administration Tools

Dr. Anthony Piña, Dr. Larry Bohn & Nina Martinez

Sullivan University System

Louisville, KY

Date post:	24-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marsha-pitts
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Using Sloan-C Quality Scorecard & Accreditation Standards as...

Documents