Higher Education institutions should incorporate learning systems into the business intelligence framework
December 28, 2007 | Leave a Comment
The Sloan Consortium, an association committed to the advancement of online learning, released the results of a a survey it commissioned on the growth of online learning in higher education. It should be of no surprise to learn that online learning continues to grow as a mode for learning, although the growth rate from 2006 to 2007 did decline slightly when compared with 2005 to 2006. Still, nearly 20% of the nations 17.6 million students are enrolled in at least one fully online course.
Of particular note is the fact that nearly 54 % of institutions are either somewhat or fully engaged in offering online learning as a key part of their strategy to deliver education.
As online learning becomes a more strategic component of the institution’s success, so to does the data within the learning management system (LMS) compared with other institutional systems. Unfortunately, too often the LMS is left to be an island of data unto itself and is not usually integrated with the administrative or ERP systems.
This can be detrimental to decision making as it is not always possible to form a 360 degree view of student activity and learning assessment without the data from both the LMS and the ERP.
While institutions have increasingly showed a willingness to interface these two systems at a transactional level, it is time that institutions consider integrating the data from these two systems to create a fully informed set of decision support tools. Increasingly accrediting agencies are asking for information on student engagement and learning outcomes. These are two areas of measurement that must come from a combined view of the data.
In five to ten years this problem may be easier to solve as the systems are likely to become one. Until that time, one should consider a business intelligence strategy that combines data from these disparate systems to create fully informed profiles of students, their engagement levels, and learning outcomes.
Internalizing accountability in higher education
December 19, 2007 | 1 Comment
Accountability has moved from being a contentious buzz word in higher education to a term that has tangible meaning to those that utter it. In fact, many in the higher education community have begun to embrace the term.
To whom are colleges and universities accountable?
Many in higher education reacted initially to the Spellings Report as one that required accountability to the government. Institutional leaders now realize that accountability to students, parents, and the larger college or university community is what was really meant.
It is hard to argue that you should not be held accountable to those that ‘buy your product’ and fund your operations. Once this realization was made, institutions began to take action.
That is why you see the rise of so many higher education accountability programs today. Where once there was the Department of Education’s College Navigator service (formerly known as COOL) as the only place to find verified outcome data for colleges and universities, there are now a slew of new programs promising even more accountability data. Such programs include:
- College Portrait - Voluntary System of Accountability sponsored by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
- U-CAN - University and College Accountability Network sponsored by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
While the above programs aim to help institution constituents learn objectively about the institution and the success measures they use, there are other accountability programs that are forming to help institutions gain a greater internal insight and help plan for improvement. Two such programs are focused on greater higher education access for minority and under-privileged socio-economic groups:
- Achieving the Dream - led by the American Association of Community Colleges
- Access to Success - recently announced by the National Association of System Heads (NASH) and The Education Trust
These two initiatives begin to exhibit real promise toward institutions realizing the real purpose of accountability. After all, one must internalize the fact that they are accountable to others and identify steps to show greater effectiveness. It is not simply about measuring and reporting. It’s about change. Change based upon information that helps bring visibility to the institution’s ability to fulfill it’s mission. That is the ultimate benefit of accountability.
ASR selected to assist with SAS Fair Banking implementation at major bank
December 15, 2007 | Leave a Comment
ASR has been selected to assist with the implementation of the SAS Fair Banking solution at a very large nationwide mortgage lender. ASR was selected for this assignment based on past success implementing the SAS Fair Banking solution at a midsized morgage lender earlier this year. This will be one of the first implementations of latest version of SAS Fair Banking (version 8). The SAS Fair Banking solution provides a complete set of tools for self-assessing compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). SAS Fair Banking enables mortgage lending institutions to effectively and efficiently collect, validate, store, isolate, aggregate, and report on loan data and loan application data. This enables financial institutions to better understand how their organization is performing based on the key compliance concerns behind HMDA and CRA. As a result, the institutions are able to meet the rigorous HMDA and CRA filing requirements with greater accuracy and timeliness. ASR will be working as a subcontractor to Zencos Consulting LLC and SAS on this engagement.