© 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

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Objectives Discuss common challenges facing DE programs Compare & contrast SACS-COC guidelines & Sloan-C scorecard Use both tools for evaluating DE programs

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Sullivan University 50 th anniversary KY’s largest Private U. 6,000 students –1,000 fully online –3,000 hybrid 45+ online programs 450+ online courses 150 faculty

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Online Enrollment Growth Source: Babson Research & Sloan-C Total H.E.Online % million1.60 million Avg. H.E. Total Growth 2.1% Avg. H.E. Online Growth 18.3%

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. 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

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Existing Tools & Rubrics Evaluation tools focus on instructional design Do not evaluate programs and administration Provide little guidance for administrators & leaders

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. 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)

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. 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

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. SACS-COC Guidelines Definitions –Correspondence Ed –Distance Ed Online student identity verification Institutional mission Curriculum & instruction

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. SACS-COC Guidelines Faculty Institution effectiveness Library & learning resources Student services Facilities & finances

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Sloan-C Quality Scorecard 70 indicators of quality –Evaluate & quantify strengths & weaknesses Results can be used for –Program improvement –Strategic planning –Preparation for accreditation

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Sloan-C Quality Scorecard Institutional support Technology support Course development and instructional design Course structure Teaching and learning

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Sloan-C Quality Scorecard Social and student engagement Faculty support Student support Evaluation and assessment

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. The Key to Success “Academic support services are appropriate and specifically related to distance & correspondence education” –SACS Distance & Correspondence Education Policy Statement

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Student-Centric Focus Online Student Sullivan University System Sullivan University Global e- Learning

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Global e-Learning Admissions Financial Planning Student Academic Services Re-Entry Coordinator Instructional Technology Faculty Administration

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. 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

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. 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

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Student Academic Services “Student support personnel are available to address student questions, problems, bug reporting, and complaints” –Sloan-C Student Support #6 Student Academic Services

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Re-Entry Coordinator Advise re-entering students Not addressed by SACS or Sloan-C Re-Entry Coordinator

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Instructional Design & Technology “There is consistency in course development for student retention and quality” –Sloan-C Course Development & Instructional Design #8 Instructional Technology

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Online Faculty “Curriculum development is a core responsibility for faculty” –Sloan-C Course Development & Instructional Design #12 Faculty

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. How do we compare nationally?

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. 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

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Met Your Expectations?

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Overall Satisfaction

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Would You Enroll Again?

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. 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

© 2011 by Anthony A. Piña, Ed.D. Questions?? SACS Distance Education Polices Sloan-C Quality Scorecard scoreboard_online_program

© 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