We had two great working sessions on Academic Progress at the PESC Summit October 19th and 20th. The face to face meetings brought together new and old members of the workgroup interested in documenting the data exchange functions to determine and reveal student academic progress by actor. Our meeting focused on review of the goals of the group, a review of the draft message sets and discussion on next steps. Most of the meeting reviewed the past work.
Discussions and questions focused on how the draft message sets need to reflect catalog year/term. The legacy of using year/term as a means to segment course and curriculum data is difficult, given many institutions govern changes to the data when it occurs mid year. Which means, year/term is not grandular enough to be distinctive. This led to the discussion about using start and end date ranges to complement and reflect the tracking of data changes. This would be more realistic going forward. There was general agreement on that.
The list of participants were:
John Ittelson – California Virtual Campus
Jason Elwood – RedLantern
Steve Hellen – Johns Hopkins University
Ed Walker – CS4Ed
Rich Petrick – Ohio Board of Regents
Shawn Bay – eScholar
Daysie Kratz – eScholar
Andy Wood – Oracle
Jason Presley – Colorado Dept of Higher Education
Manuel Dietz – Unisolution
Bill Hollowsky – SunGard Higher Education
Ken Sauer – Indiana Commission for Higher Education
Deborah Newby – United States Department of Education
Charles McGrew – Data Quality Campaign
Anne Valentine – Academi Ccatalog
David Moldoff - AcademyOne
Bill Pryor - Academy One
The next meeting is scheduled for Friday October 30th and 2:00pm. Conference Call Information is:
866.352.3799 meeting number is 7696363
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
New Conference Call Number
Conference call number was changed by PESC.
866.352.3799 meeting number is 7696363
866.352.3799 meeting number is 7696363
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Tracking Learner's Academic Progress
In our recent conference calls of the Academic Progress Workgroup, we have discussed about two dozen granular academic progress events with data payloads from a general level. That sounds pretty technical, but essentially, we are crafting an abstract model of events that could be supported by any product engaging in student support and advising systems. We are not constructing this event model specific to a vendor's product. Nor, are we confined by the limitations of existing technology. Our efforts are motivated to create a new way of thinking about the growing list of what are essentially snapshots in time that would reveal either a need for data or for a process against a set of data to help students succeed.
Our goal is to create an abstract interface layer with detailed specifications to support academic progress within one academic institution, across academic institutions, and supported by others stakeholders like state agencies as students persist, stop and start on their path to a degree. This abstract layer would be owned, in a sense by the public and not vendors through PESC. It will allow the community of software developers, implementers and agents to build bridges between applications on campus and across campuses with consistency and purpose. We need to motivate student system authors and other academic progress related system authors impacting or tracking a learner's academic progress to think of this work like Underwriters Laboratories (UL) which is a worldwide standard to ensure safety across power, chemical, plumbing, fire, energy, lighting, and appliances.
UL is not governmental, but it is intertwined in code required by local, state and federal agencies and enforced in a range of laws and regulations. Vendor software systems, are like appliances. Think of a washer or dryer. There are standards on how the appliance is connected to the electrical system of a house, apartment or building. You would not consider it safe to hardwire the 240v, 20 amp power feed direct into the power grid would you?
The software industry in general has been shielded by complexity and continuous development that has yielded the environment we face. That is, one that is not very easy to plug and play products, nor leverage the assets of appliances built by many and managed inside or shared by universities and colleges. Without some form of data exchange standards, we will continue to expend a large portion of our resources on very unproductive results since the bridges between systems are limited or non-existent. This friction is actually harming the adoption of products industry wide, because of the cost and technical complexity limits the use of appliances in general.
Often, software authors and developers assume their limited functions are airtight. Like the washer machine that is made by GE or Maytag, systems are somewhat self-contained with their functions and purpose. Yet, the appliances have to fit into the confines of the power brought into the house, and be safely used by consumers who are not expert at power or professionally trained electricians. If the power load is not 'standard', special interfaces have to be constructed. This drives the cost up and often, limits the utility of all products in our industry. And, this resistance slows sales, turnover of systems and actually hurts the software industry that is trying to grow their value or utility in a small market confined by academic mission. It is not like we (software authors) are creating software products that can span into other industries. The small market footprint thus limits the ability of vendors and authors to rationalize the need to turn over technology and reinvest - or redesign for the evolving global market.
Do you realize that States spend nearly 50% of their budget on education? When you consider that many States are like countries, what does that mean when we think globally? Institutions receive directly or indirectly billions of dollars of support from Federal and State funds - something on the order of $300 Billion. Roughly 4% is spent on IT. That is somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 Billion. Not a small market at all.
There is a bigger picture than looking at the institutional model as the sole constituent of software utilized in higher education or K12. Vendors and authors may not be convinced this is in their best interest. They make money from the expensive connections they build and support today at the institutional level. They protect their institutional install base by not allowing others to do the connections. But, as States and the Federal Government Agencies continue to expect new virtual connections, the bigger market to consider is how to develop appliances that could plug in and support the next generation of products and services that will support learners everywhere.
Most vendors and authors feel their application services do support open integrations and interfaces according to their own definition of use. This includes all forms of software from commercially developed systems to open source systems. Yet, most are not engaged in the community process spanning their own self interests. If they joined PESC and worked together, even with their competitive organizations and offerings, the world and outcomes would be different. Most developers and authors still market open systems, open technology and flexibility in the guise they are. Many have promised integrations, API's (application program interfaces) and adapters, only to find it near impossible to really deliver them given the complexity and motives already mentioned. Meanwhile, the promise of technology goes unfulfilled. It is not delivering on the true potential to support connectivity, communications and data workflows. When we see systems like Twitter and Facebook expand with viral adoption, one must question, does the proprietary view the industry has generally taken, been the root reason why systems don't work well together?
We know or can at least argue about it, that this is a very narrow market and is also difficult to breakdown since proprietary motives tend to hinder open access and sharing. Vendors protect proprietary assets the same as institutions. Yet, systems must interchange data and processes to support the freedom of data flows in my view to support learners. That is what Government will mandate and regulate, whether we like it or not. It will require technical evolution led by new forces that will drive the evolution of software. Governance will not come from institutions. It will evolve from Government. The single institution's perspective is still relevant and important, but only one perspective. In order to leverage the billions of dollars spent on education, and to grow the value invested in education, Government will support the use of shared resources. PESC is like a sandbox we can all play in.
As we look to the future, learning will not be confined by an institution or a period of time. Institutions will offer the means to obtain credentials and verify we have obtained them. Institutions will continue to meter how we view learning outcomes, knowledge creation and the socialization of knowledge in small, statically controlled communities of faculty and learners - in person or online. How learning delivery and recognition evolves will be impacted by technology no doubt. Yet, no matter how it evolves, learning and academic progress will always be events distributed over time. Systems snapshot time and capture data. And, if systems continue to evolve as they are, we will eventually get to the point that the events and data will have to be better defined independent of products to allow expansion of the technology, the development of more advanced tools and the creation of a better learner enterprise.
Mobility matters because the world is our campus. Learning, assessment and recognition of learning are at the core of academic progress. Come join us and work to define how the systems to support 21st century learners could leverage the work in our sand box.
Our goal is to create an abstract interface layer with detailed specifications to support academic progress within one academic institution, across academic institutions, and supported by others stakeholders like state agencies as students persist, stop and start on their path to a degree. This abstract layer would be owned, in a sense by the public and not vendors through PESC. It will allow the community of software developers, implementers and agents to build bridges between applications on campus and across campuses with consistency and purpose. We need to motivate student system authors and other academic progress related system authors impacting or tracking a learner's academic progress to think of this work like Underwriters Laboratories (UL) which is a worldwide standard to ensure safety across power, chemical, plumbing, fire, energy, lighting, and appliances.
UL is not governmental, but it is intertwined in code required by local, state and federal agencies and enforced in a range of laws and regulations. Vendor software systems, are like appliances. Think of a washer or dryer. There are standards on how the appliance is connected to the electrical system of a house, apartment or building. You would not consider it safe to hardwire the 240v, 20 amp power feed direct into the power grid would you?
The software industry in general has been shielded by complexity and continuous development that has yielded the environment we face. That is, one that is not very easy to plug and play products, nor leverage the assets of appliances built by many and managed inside or shared by universities and colleges. Without some form of data exchange standards, we will continue to expend a large portion of our resources on very unproductive results since the bridges between systems are limited or non-existent. This friction is actually harming the adoption of products industry wide, because of the cost and technical complexity limits the use of appliances in general.
Often, software authors and developers assume their limited functions are airtight. Like the washer machine that is made by GE or Maytag, systems are somewhat self-contained with their functions and purpose. Yet, the appliances have to fit into the confines of the power brought into the house, and be safely used by consumers who are not expert at power or professionally trained electricians. If the power load is not 'standard', special interfaces have to be constructed. This drives the cost up and often, limits the utility of all products in our industry. And, this resistance slows sales, turnover of systems and actually hurts the software industry that is trying to grow their value or utility in a small market confined by academic mission. It is not like we (software authors) are creating software products that can span into other industries. The small market footprint thus limits the ability of vendors and authors to rationalize the need to turn over technology and reinvest - or redesign for the evolving global market.
Do you realize that States spend nearly 50% of their budget on education? When you consider that many States are like countries, what does that mean when we think globally? Institutions receive directly or indirectly billions of dollars of support from Federal and State funds - something on the order of $300 Billion. Roughly 4% is spent on IT. That is somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 Billion. Not a small market at all.
There is a bigger picture than looking at the institutional model as the sole constituent of software utilized in higher education or K12. Vendors and authors may not be convinced this is in their best interest. They make money from the expensive connections they build and support today at the institutional level. They protect their institutional install base by not allowing others to do the connections. But, as States and the Federal Government Agencies continue to expect new virtual connections, the bigger market to consider is how to develop appliances that could plug in and support the next generation of products and services that will support learners everywhere.
Most vendors and authors feel their application services do support open integrations and interfaces according to their own definition of use. This includes all forms of software from commercially developed systems to open source systems. Yet, most are not engaged in the community process spanning their own self interests. If they joined PESC and worked together, even with their competitive organizations and offerings, the world and outcomes would be different. Most developers and authors still market open systems, open technology and flexibility in the guise they are. Many have promised integrations, API's (application program interfaces) and adapters, only to find it near impossible to really deliver them given the complexity and motives already mentioned. Meanwhile, the promise of technology goes unfulfilled. It is not delivering on the true potential to support connectivity, communications and data workflows. When we see systems like Twitter and Facebook expand with viral adoption, one must question, does the proprietary view the industry has generally taken, been the root reason why systems don't work well together?
We know or can at least argue about it, that this is a very narrow market and is also difficult to breakdown since proprietary motives tend to hinder open access and sharing. Vendors protect proprietary assets the same as institutions. Yet, systems must interchange data and processes to support the freedom of data flows in my view to support learners. That is what Government will mandate and regulate, whether we like it or not. It will require technical evolution led by new forces that will drive the evolution of software. Governance will not come from institutions. It will evolve from Government. The single institution's perspective is still relevant and important, but only one perspective. In order to leverage the billions of dollars spent on education, and to grow the value invested in education, Government will support the use of shared resources. PESC is like a sandbox we can all play in.
As we look to the future, learning will not be confined by an institution or a period of time. Institutions will offer the means to obtain credentials and verify we have obtained them. Institutions will continue to meter how we view learning outcomes, knowledge creation and the socialization of knowledge in small, statically controlled communities of faculty and learners - in person or online. How learning delivery and recognition evolves will be impacted by technology no doubt. Yet, no matter how it evolves, learning and academic progress will always be events distributed over time. Systems snapshot time and capture data. And, if systems continue to evolve as they are, we will eventually get to the point that the events and data will have to be better defined independent of products to allow expansion of the technology, the development of more advanced tools and the creation of a better learner enterprise.
Mobility matters because the world is our campus. Learning, assessment and recognition of learning are at the core of academic progress. Come join us and work to define how the systems to support 21st century learners could leverage the work in our sand box.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Next Six Meetings
Here are the next six meetings including the PESC Fall Summit in DC. Use Conference Call Number except for
Oct 19th. Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100 Access Code: 726310#
Aug 28th 2:00pm EST
Sep 11th 2:00pm EST
Sep 25th 2:00pm EST
Oct 9th 2:00pm EST
Oct 19th 2:00pm EST
Oct 30th 2:00pm EST
Oct 19th. Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100 Access Code: 726310#
Aug 28th 2:00pm EST
Sep 11th 2:00pm EST
Sep 25th 2:00pm EST
Oct 9th 2:00pm EST
Oct 19th 2:00pm EST
Oct 30th 2:00pm EST
Monday, June 8, 2009
Academic Progress Message Sets
June 5th 2009, 2:PM EST
Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100
Participant Access Code: 726310#
In our last meeting, we discussed the event model and draft message sets.
Friday afternoons were confirmed to be the best for most people to participate in the conference calls. The next three meetings are scheduled for June 19th, July 10 and 31st. Each one hour call will concentrate on further review and definition of the draft message sets and how they relate to the event model.
If you can’t make it, you can still keep up with our progress on our wiki:
http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/Home/artifacts
Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100
Participant Access Code: 726310#
In our last meeting, we discussed the event model and draft message sets.
Friday afternoons were confirmed to be the best for most people to participate in the conference calls. The next three meetings are scheduled for June 19th, July 10 and 31st. Each one hour call will concentrate on further review and definition of the draft message sets and how they relate to the event model.
If you can’t make it, you can still keep up with our progress on our wiki:
http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/Home/artifacts
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Academic Progress Event Model Call
May 15th 2009, 2:PM EST
Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100
Participant Access Code: 726310#
In our last meeting, we agreed Friday afternoons the best for most people to participate in the conference calls. If you can’t make it, you can still keep up with our progress on our wiki:
http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/Home/artifacts
We will continue our discussion of the Academic Progress model outlined in our last get together in DC. Attached to this email you will find a Visio diagram we drafted at the meeting last month. It can be viewed with an ActiveX control when you open the attachment in your browser. The first page of the diagram represents the high level Academic Progress model showing the touch points of a learner/student through the stages of obtaining a credential or satisfying requirements. Each box represents a high level perspective of something happening at an abstract level. There could be more than one message or data schema required to support each event. Each event could create, update, delete or add data to systems supporting Academic Progress, guidance, tracking, etc. Our next step will be to drill down as we fill in the event model. If you have any questions, let me know.
Please join us if you can for our next working session on May 15 (Friday) at 2:00PM EST.
The Visio diagram will be added to the wiki and notes will be posted on the academicprogress wiki. Check out: http:http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/Home/artifacts
When I complete an update on the blog, I promise to send another message to the list serv. Look forward to our progress...
Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100
Participant Access Code: 726310#
In our last meeting, we agreed Friday afternoons the best for most people to participate in the conference calls. If you can’t make it, you can still keep up with our progress on our wiki:
http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/Home/artifacts
We will continue our discussion of the Academic Progress model outlined in our last get together in DC. Attached to this email you will find a Visio diagram we drafted at the meeting last month. It can be viewed with an ActiveX control when you open the attachment in your browser. The first page of the diagram represents the high level Academic Progress model showing the touch points of a learner/student through the stages of obtaining a credential or satisfying requirements. Each box represents a high level perspective of something happening at an abstract level. There could be more than one message or data schema required to support each event. Each event could create, update, delete or add data to systems supporting Academic Progress, guidance, tracking, etc. Our next step will be to drill down as we fill in the event model. If you have any questions, let me know.
Please join us if you can for our next working session on May 15 (Friday) at 2:00PM EST.
The Visio diagram will be added to the wiki and notes will be posted on the academicprogress wiki. Check out: http:http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/Home/artifacts
When I complete an update on the blog, I promise to send another message to the list serv. Look forward to our progress...
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Meeting March 27, 2009, 3:30PM EST
Before we can serve the vision of the “Student’s Academic GPS” (coined by the Washington HECB), we need to have a plan to develop the transport(s), the interconnection(s) and means to transmit data to new “devices” that can reveal pathways and data mapped by destination or in other words aspirations (and required competencies) linked to careers. Where are learning outcomes, not just courses, programs and requirements? What are the events that occur intersecting learner and institution? How do we support learners through the continuum? What data do we need? Sometimes it is helpful to reference or model innovations in other industries when we explore our challenges.
If we are going to make headway on this, we need to make the investment up front to work thru the details. Our European counterparts and the diploma supplement demonstrate stakeholders are attempting to redefine methods of tracking academic progress, transitions and completion, while respecting the needs of those who assess learning throughout the life cycle of serving students. Should we create a transcript supplement? A document that would attach to a transcript defining the outcomes and value of learning accomplished?
The PESC Academic Progress Workgroup is underway and we hope you can join us. The PESC Workgroup was formed back in October 2008. We are focused on improving degree completion and student success through improved data management. This workgroup will span three levels to help practitioners, policy and governance stakeholders understand the nuances, concerns and challenges facing our industry as we develop requirements for data exchange specifications.
The PESC Academic Progress Workgroup is made up of volunteers - working together. Our goal is to produce a neutral set of data exchange specifications for tracking and assessing a learner's academic progress through institutional programs of study. This is a broad topic. We will promote specifications in stages, once complete. And, we hope the specifications will be adopted and built-in to application tools employed by institutions and stakeholders over time. The impact, we hope will build toward our overall goals of interoperability, improved utilization of resources and services to learners everywhere.
Data, assessment methods and processes are important elements of guidance, planning and response to learners. It requires institutional orchestration and coordination. Guidance requires information to transition on and off bridges - to transverse institutional policies and practices, whether inside one institution or across several. As we build the next generation systems, let’s work together to define the touchpoints.
We hope you can contribute to our initiative. If not, track our progress on our blog and wiki.
Wiki: http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/
Blog: http://academicprogress.blogspot.com/
Reminder, Conference Call, Friday 3:30PM, EST
Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100
Participant Access Code: 726310#
Focus on this call will be on creating an Academic Progress work plan. I have outlined a series of todo’s on the wiki site starting with the Scope. We will review the task list, edit, add more, delete, etc.
Looking forward to our progress together
If we are going to make headway on this, we need to make the investment up front to work thru the details. Our European counterparts and the diploma supplement demonstrate stakeholders are attempting to redefine methods of tracking academic progress, transitions and completion, while respecting the needs of those who assess learning throughout the life cycle of serving students. Should we create a transcript supplement? A document that would attach to a transcript defining the outcomes and value of learning accomplished?
The PESC Academic Progress Workgroup is underway and we hope you can join us. The PESC Workgroup was formed back in October 2008. We are focused on improving degree completion and student success through improved data management. This workgroup will span three levels to help practitioners, policy and governance stakeholders understand the nuances, concerns and challenges facing our industry as we develop requirements for data exchange specifications.
The PESC Academic Progress Workgroup is made up of volunteers - working together. Our goal is to produce a neutral set of data exchange specifications for tracking and assessing a learner's academic progress through institutional programs of study. This is a broad topic. We will promote specifications in stages, once complete. And, we hope the specifications will be adopted and built-in to application tools employed by institutions and stakeholders over time. The impact, we hope will build toward our overall goals of interoperability, improved utilization of resources and services to learners everywhere.
Data, assessment methods and processes are important elements of guidance, planning and response to learners. It requires institutional orchestration and coordination. Guidance requires information to transition on and off bridges - to transverse institutional policies and practices, whether inside one institution or across several. As we build the next generation systems, let’s work together to define the touchpoints.
We hope you can contribute to our initiative. If not, track our progress on our blog and wiki.
Wiki: http://sites.google.com/site/academicprogress/
Blog: http://academicprogress.blogspot.com/
Reminder, Conference Call, Friday 3:30PM, EST
Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100
Participant Access Code: 726310#
Focus on this call will be on creating an Academic Progress work plan. I have outlined a series of todo’s on the wiki site starting with the Scope. We will review the task list, edit, add more, delete, etc.
Looking forward to our progress together
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
