Beyond Seat-Time: Competency-Based Programs as Coin of the Realm

1. Beyond Seat-Time: Competency-Based Programs as Coin of the Realm April 11, 2013 Michael J. Offerman Offerman

2. Goal • Substantially increase American higher education attainment rates • Can CBE help? Offerman

3. Concerns • Historically learning has been formal, local and time based • Can we move beyond time (Beyond Seat-Time)? • Can we certify learning that is informal and/or achieved outside the institution? Offerman

4. Concerns • Broader issues of concern to policy-makers and public: • Rising costs of HE • Many students fail to complete • Questions whether students are learning what is intended Offerman

5. Why Now? • CBE may help address cost, improve completion and focus on learning outcomes • Combination of CBE, technology and analytics may yield • Adaptive approaches • Predictive models in support of student progression and learning • Efficiencies in costs (price) and time to degree Offerman

6. Beyond Seat-Time Public and Private Non-Profit Competency-based degree programs Terminology Concept-based Assessment- or outcomes-based Personalized Other Offerman

7. Beyond Seat-Time Considerable activity About thirty institutions Aggregation institutions New programs within institutions or entirely new institutions (Portmont) Changing entire institution CC through Research/Doctoral All six regional accrediting agencies Offerman

8. Requests from CBE Providers • Community • Alternative back-office software and processes • Policies that support CBE and free it from the limitations of time-based credit hour assumptions • The total reliance on credit hour for FA has exacerbated the back-office challenges Offerman

9. Federal Rules • Credit Hour Rules • WGU and others • Force fit CBE into rules • Direct Assessment Rule (SNHU) • “In lieu of credit or clock hours” • Still “tethered” to time • Alternative or Replacement? • Opportunity: FA based on learning, not time Offerman

10. Beyond Seat-Time Examples Institution Examples: Charter Oak State College Northern Arizona University University of Toledo Offerman

11. Beyond Seat-Time Examples BA/S Program examples: DePaul U. School for New Learning 50 competencies across 5 domain areas Westminster College 75 competencies in 20 cross-functional projects (observational rubrics) Southern New Hampshire University College for America-120 competencies, 3 tiers, $2500/year or less http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/01/31/competency-based-education-and-regional-accreditation#ixzz2JYygjbAI Offerman

12. Definition of Competency Competency: “combinations of skills, abilities and knowledge needed to perform a task in a specific context” “Defining and assessing learning: Exploring competency-based initiatives” NCES, 2002 Offerman

13. Relevance of Time? Students learn at different paces So, time should be variable rather than fixed Students should be able to demonstrate mastery when ready Credit hour never intended as we use it “Cracking the Credit Hour”, Amy Laitinen http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/cracking_the_credit_hour Offerman

14. Curriculum Development Rather than a syllabus as first step, Identify resources and activities to deliver the competencies “A ‘disruptive’ look at competency-based education: How the innovative use of technology will transform the college experience” Louis Soares, 2012 Offerman

15. Competency-Based Difference Backwards curriculum planning—start with what expect at conclusion of program: what competencies must student demonstrate to justify degree? Outcomes = what does student know and can do Offerman

16. Notes from the Field Faculty Role Changes? Varied from limited (adapt to different approach) to considerable Disaggregation Instructors teach Coaches/mentors + teachers + course/curriculum+evaluators Offerman

17. Notes from the Field Infrastructure/Back-Office Ops Transcripts Many use two—one “traditional” and one more portfolio-like Transfers in and out Translations and cross-walk to credits Offerman

18. Anticipated Advantages for Students Coherent, planned and focused programs Personalized & efficient pathways to completion Faster time to degree (more PLA +) Lower costs & prices (OER, etc.) Offerman

19. Anticipated Advantages Individualized pacing Applied assessments Pre-assessment Embedded at granular levels Enable both adaptive and predictive models Rubrics help build confidence Offerman

20. Anticipated Advantages Choice with mix of local, non-local, formal, informal learning DIY-U Find best learning opportunity at lowest cost Does not matter where, when, how if demonstrate mastery of competency Offerman

21. Seat-Time=Barriers Faculty reactions mixed Did this in 1970’s and failed Many engage even though difficult Faculty are not a barrier Offerman

22. Seat-Time=Barriers Barriers Federal--Department of Education FA based on time versus learning Accreditation agencies State Institution Offerman

23. Seat-Time=Progress Dear Colleague Letter (3/19/2013) Deputy Assistant Secretary Bergeron “The Department plans to collaborate with both accrediting agencies and the higher education community to encourage the use of this innovative approach when appropriate . . .” Offerman

24. Seat-Time=Progress April 22-23 Convening Department Regional accrediting agencies Some state SHEEOs Several institutions ready to move to direct assessment Dialogue to inform CBE policy Offerman

25. Capella Experience • Primarily graduate level, totally online, adults 25 and older, for-profit • Arrived in 2001 and learned that we had informed HLC that we were “outcomes based” • What does that mean? • What outcomes justify a bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral degree? Offerman

26. Outcomes Based • Do we know what outcomes we expect for each degree we offer? • Are we teaching to those outcomes? • Are we assessing for those outcomes? • Are students actually demonstrating that they are achieving the outcomes? • At what proficiency level? • Do students understand expectations and program designs? Offerman

27. Results • Led to a long-term, continuing effort to focus on assessment of competencies and program-level learning outcomes • Focus on a disciplined curriculum approach • Not a “cookie cutter” but coherent • Not at all easy but embraced as faculty came to understand and results were shared externally • Desired student enablement/empowerment Offerman

28. Results • Competency emphasis • Clarity about expectations/proficiency levels • Engagement with employers • Program level learning outcomes plans • Curriculum maps • Rubrics • Fully Embedded Assessment Model (FEAM) • Academic analytics Offerman

29. FEAM=Coherence • Relate all learning assessments to program level learning outcomes (PLLO) • Each course designed to deliver to PLLO • Able to pull assessment results to evaluate individual student performance and performance of teaching modules • Led to predictive modeling, clear maps about expectations/sequencing, changed behavior Offerman

30. FEAM=Behavior Changes • Student behavior • From attention on aggregate grades • To specific (granular) scores on competencies and PLLO • Faculty behavior • From alignment perspective (what teach aligns with PLLO) • To a measurement perspective (is what is being taught actually delivering PLLO?) Offerman

31. FEAM • Years of intense discussion and decisions about outcomes, rubrics, assessments, PLLO • Translation of very different languages (faculty and assessment specialists and quality analysts) • Tools to assist faculty • Program maps visualize curricula and are better than course catalogue and graduation requirements Offerman

32. New Roles in Support of Faculty • SME (faculty) focuses on articulation of required competencies • Curriculum specialists • Assessment specialists • Quality analysts • Editors • Interactive media designers • Project managers Offerman

33. Faculty Reaction • 95% of faculty report the FEAM process has resulted in perceived improvement of their teaching effectiveness • Report that they use data to self-assess • “With FEAM data I can ensure my own consistency and reliability in scoring learners’ work. I can also better identify where I need to develop supplementary materials for more difficult assignments or concepts . . .” Offerman

34. Internal Challenges • Initially very challenging • Assured faculty that they controlled curricula, outcomes identification, rubrics development, etc. • At same time, introduced curriculum specialists • Took a long time (think years) and demanded patience and persistence • Department by department, school by school • Ultimately, faculty led us beyond what we expected Offerman

35. Reflection • Interestingly, as look back, faculty became truly motivated and ultimately committed only after we began sharing results externally • Saw prospective students make enrollment decisions based on program level learning outcomes results • Accepted that this was about students and not some fearsome faculty assessment Offerman

36. External Impact • Inside the Academy • Desire to share in order to learn (and did) • Higher Learning Commission • Academic Quality Improvement Project/Program (AQIP) • Based on Baldridge Award principles • Continuous, intense interaction with agency • National award from CHEA Offerman

37. External Impact • Beyond the Academy • Opportunities to explain approach and work with external stakeholders, including critics in Congress and some states • Led to work with other adult-serving, online colleges and universities on an effort to provide information about expectations, outcomes of degree offerings to prospective students • Transparency by Design Offerman

38. Background • Twenty years in public universities • University of Wisconsin Learning Innovations • Ten years at Capella University • Foundations (policy focused) • “Common Metrics”: B&M Gates • “Beyond Seat Time”: Lumina, Gates, Joyce, Kresge • “Breakthrough Models Incubator” • Do not speak for the foundations Offerman

39. American Higher Education Reputations=proxies for learning Teaching/learning=formal/local Financial aid tied to credit hour/time Faculty centric Transfer limitations Enterprise systems Rising Costs Drive up Price Offerman

40. American Higher Education Fundamental Changes on Horizon Example: Competency-Based Programs Direct Assessment Different structures, packaging, delivery Recognize not only prior but also emergent and informal learning Offerman

41. Beyond Seat-Time Can we use learning rather than time or other proxies for Measuring and assuring relative quality of programs and institutions Eligibility and distribution of financial aids Rewarding learning rather than time spent Offerman

42. Coin of the Realm Might this reduce time to degree/cost? Better recognition of prior and emergent learning Self-pacing Lower delivery costs Improved analytics/predictive models “Coin of the Realm” Offerman

43. My Experience with CBE Competency-based at Capella Negotiator for Negotiated Rulemaking on Accreditation Beyond seat-time What is happening? Particular interest in direct assessment Offerman