Major Updates

Negotiated Rulemaking Does Not Reach Consensus on Distance Education, State Authorization, Accreditation, and Other Topics

The recent session of negotiated rulemaking at the Department of Education on Program Integrity and Institutional Quality concluded without reaching a consensus on several pivotal Issue Papers. The discussions were marred by considerable disagreement on key topics such as revisions to Distance Education, State Authorization, and Accreditation protocols. There were a few topics which caused disagreement, including: the mandate for recording attendance in fully online courses to accurately determine withdrawal dates for virtual learners; the cash management change compelling institutions to adopt an “opt-in” approach rather than “opt-out” for students to approve bundling textbooks with tuition and fees—also known as “inclusive access”. There also was much disagreement about oversight of online education programs and the intricacies of state authorization changes, including concerns about reciprocity agreements, complaint processes, application of state laws related to closure and additional direct authorization thresholds, including a new 500 student threshold which would require direct authorization from any state where an institution enrolls more than 500 students in the two most recent years.

Given the impasse, the Department of Education now possesses the authority to draft proposed regulatory changes independently. This means the Department is likely to formulate and present its regulatory proposals for public scrutiny and comment within the next few months. This must be done before they evolve into final regulations, which if finalized before November 1 of this year, some may be implemented as soon as July 1, 2025. Ahead of this proposal being released, we encourage institutions to discuss these proposed changes and activities that occurred during negotiated rulemaking with their institutional government affairs offices. They may also consider talking with state officials as it relates to the state authorization proposals which could significantly impact how institutions deliver education across state lines, and how states would need to deal with authorization processes. View the negotiated rulemaking sessions and view the proposal papers.

 

Bipartisan Competency-Based Education Bill Introduced in House of Representatives
In a significant step towards reforming higher education, a bipartisan group of the House of Representatives, Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Brittany Pettersen (D-CO), and Burgess Owens (R-UT) have introduced the Empowering Learners Through Competency-Based Education Act. This bipartisan bill is designed to support universities in adopting competency-based education (CBE) models, which prioritize learning outcomes over traditional seat-time benchmarks. The bill would: define CBE programs; require the Department of Education to collect, verify, and make publicly available important program outcomes information on CBE programs; and establish a CBE demonstration project at the Department of Education to assist institutions in developing CBE programs. CBE allows students to advance upon mastering course material, potentially accelerating their path to degree completion and entry into the workforce with reduced debt burdens. The bill received endorsements from notable institutions like Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University’s Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice. Read more.

 

Gainful Employment/Financial Value Transparency Reporting Public Comment Due April 22

The Department of Education has opened a public comment period regarding the Gainful Employment/Financial Value Transparency reporting requirements. With a deadline of April 22, institutions, stakeholders, and the public are invited to provide feedback to the Department on these reporting requirements. This includes providing input on the Department’s data usage, and suggestions for minimizing reporting burdens. The regulations, negotiated in 2022 and finalized in 2023, are applicable to both gainful employment (GE) and non-GE programs. Engagement in this comment period is a vital opportunity for educational institutions to influence the development of policies that will shape a significant regulatory change which goes into effect July 1, 2024. Your input can help the Department understand and refine the collection process. Read more and submit a public comment here.

Other News

Online continuing education programs saw improved staffing and increased support from institutional leadership in the last year, but still face many challenges, according to a new report released Tuesday.

The “State of Continuing Education 2024” from UPCEA, the organization previously known as the University Professional and Continuing Education Association, found that 45 percent of respondents said they have appropriate staff levels for their continuing education units. That’s more than double the 22 percent of respondents who agreed last year and the 21 percent in 2022.

“That is a massive shift from the last two years,” said Bruce Etter, UPCEA’s senior director of research and consulting. “I think support and buy-in from leadership is at a tipping point and translating to resources.”

Read the full article.

This is not science fiction, rather it is science fact that we increasingly are sending Artificial Intelligent (AI) agents on our personal and professional tasks.

We have discussed much about the development of AI capabilities in this column. We have reached the point of near-vertical expansion of AI speed, capacity and scope of knowledge. Elon Musk is convinced that OpenAI and Microsoft have already achieved Artificial General Intelligence. If that is not the case, it seems that AGI will soon be achieved and the summative force of research will be applied to accomplishing Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI). What is ASI, you ask? IBM says “Artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical software-based artificial intelligence (AI) system with an intellectual scope beyond human intelligence. At the most fundamental level, this superintelligent AI has cutting-edge cognitive functions and highly developed thinking skills more advanced than any human.” This is a step above AGI. It includes abilities well beyond those of a single human. It surpasses the “knowledge and abilities” of collective humanity.

ASI is expected to also possess both cognitive and affective characteristics. Affective computing extends beyond just facts and logic to encompass human emotions more fully:

Affective computing is the study and development of systems and devices that can recognize, interpret, process, and simulate human emotions. In the AI context, the significance of affective computing lies in its ability to bridge the gap between human emotions and technological advancements, thereby enhancing the overall user experience and interaction with AI-driven systems. By imbuing AI with emotional intelligence, affective computing contributes to creating more empathetic, responsive, and adaptive technology. The importance of affective computing in AI is underscored by its potential to revolutionize various sectors, including healthcare, education, customer service, and entertainment. By understanding and responding to human emotions, AI systems can personalize experiences, offer tailored support, and facilitate more natural and intuitive human-machine interactions, thereby significantly augmenting the utility and acceptance of AI technologies.

In some cases, this is referred to as sentient computing:

We can use this model to write programs that react to changes in the environment according to the user’s preferences. We call this sentient computing because the applications appear to share the user’s perception of the environment. Treating the current state of the environment as common ground between computers and users provides new ways of interacting with information systems.

We don’t need all of the above characteristics to launch personal intelligent agents. However, when we do combine these qualities and characteristics, we are able to most fully accomplish autonomous agents that can make and exchange ideas and perform tasks on our behalf while retaining our personal values, orientations and knowledge. To further speed the actions and responses, we may be running these agents on quantum computing platforms.  As Johnathan Reichental writes in Forbes “The deliberate collision of two game-changing technologies has the potential to upend the technology industry and bring about a new era of business disruption and innovation. Few industries will be spared this transformation, and it will create completely new value and risks. Hyperbole? I don’t think so. In the future, artificial intelligence is likely to become supercharged by quantum computing. It’s a partnership that could change the world.”

Each of these qualities will be accomplished in steps, not necessarily sequentially in the order that we have discussed them, but calling upon the addition of these distinct and unique computing characteristics. What will this mean for higher education, learning and personal application of knowledge and skills?

In short, it means we humans will be able to virtually replicate and extend our personae in multiple simultaneous forms around the world. Our agents will be in many places simultaneously. Our AI-extended knowledge, values and personalities will be omni-present. Imagine the implications for exceptional faculty members in their roles as teachers and researchers!

One early model is “Devin” who can be tasked with software engineering. Developed by Cognition, Devin is, as Will Knight describes in Wired “Devin is just the latest, most polished example of a trend I’ve been tracking for a while—the emergence of AI agents that instead of just providing answers or advice about a problem presented by a human can take action to solve it.”

For the sake of higher education, I expect that learning will be offered in adaptive and mastery formats. That means as students are engaged in learning, they will be constantly assessed for knowledge of the particular aspect of the subject they are studying at the time. These assessments will be constructed such that the student’s response will be instantly analyzed to determine any wrong answers that are given as well as the misconceptions that led them to submit the wrong answer. Students, then, are diverted to a module with tutoring addressing the misconception until they understand the correct approach. Historically, faculty have not had the tools and time to conduct such analyses and remediate students within the semester. Thus, with few exceptions, we have not been able to ensure that all students have achieved full mastery of the material in the course.

Using the computer to serve as a kind of tutor/agent in assessing and redirecting students will lead to mastery learning as the standard approach in higher education. In my opinion, this will be one of the greatest advances of all time in pedagogy and practice. I have always felt uncomfortable with awarding a C, D, or F to work in a course. We should not move a student forward until they fully master the material of the class. In many cases, we scaffold our learning across multiple classes with each succeeding class depending upon the full knowledge, understanding and skill in applying the material of the prior class. That scaffold is compromised if, at any level, our students fail to fully learn the material. An entire degree, and even a career, can be compromised by one faulty concept learned, or incompletely learned, in an introductory class! Of course, this means individual semesters may be shorter or longer for each student than the rigid number of weeks today as students take more or less time to master the material. However, the outcomes will be uniformly strong or better. We should accept nothing less.

We are on the brink of raising the bar of quality and completeness in all of higher education with the aid of artificial intelligence. Is your institution prepared for the changes that will come in the months and years ahead? Who is providing the forward-thinking vision, and leading the planning required to implement these changes?

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed’s Transforming Teaching & Learning blog.

The pandemic upheaval forced rapid adaptation across campuses, accelerating the digital transformation that had been underway for decades. Online and professional education is at the forefront of this transformation, addressing strategic questions about business models and learner needs. In this ever-evolving landscape of higher education, adaptation isn’t just an option; it’s a necessity. UPCEA recognized this imperative and embarked on a transformative journey to redefine its brand identity and mission. This journey began with a critical question posed by our Board of Directors: Does the current UPCEA brand accurately reflect who we are today?

The pandemic-induced migration of campuses to the digital realm triggered profound transformations. Most programs now cater predominantly to online learners, reflecting a trajectory accelerated by the crisis. Irrespective of the organizational structure, most of your programs are now offered largely online in order to meet the needs and preferences of today’s learners, especially those seeking career advancement in one form or another. This, of course, is not a departure from the trajectory of our field. It was an acceleration of trajectory that put digital transformation front and center for campus leadership as they were forced to confront fundamental strategic questions about how best to serve today’s learners. Likewise, professional associations needed to emerge from the pandemic better positioned to meet the evolving needs of their members.

In response to these challenges, UPCEA took proactive measures to support its members and adapt to the evolving landscape. Initiatives such as the creation of online professional development certificates and the introduction of Convergence, a cutting-edge conference on credential innovation held in partnership with AACRAO, underscore UPCEA’s commitment to addressing the changing needs of its community.

In addition, UPCEA assumed management of the Distance Teaching & Learning Conference, a venerable institution hosted by the University of Wisconsin for nearly four decades. This event, now coupled with our Summit for Online Leadership and Administration, has played a pivotal role in fostering collaboration and innovation in the field.

These initiatives, among others, have driven unprecedented growth for UPCEA. To ensure alignment with its current trajectory, UPCEA commissioned its Research & Consulting team to evaluate the resonance of its brand with members and non-members alike. Through member surveys and interviews with senior administrators, UPCEA sought to gauge perceptions and understandings of its role in the evolving landscape of higher education.

Survey respondents were asked how strongly they associate UPCEA with the field’s core areas of focus. Members demonstrated a clear understanding of UPCEA’s role, with an overwhelming 97% of chief online learning officers recognizing UPCEA’s strong focus on online leadership and administration, and 90% acknowledged UPCEA’s importance for their professional development. Additional areas of strength include alternative or microcredentials, marketing and enrollment management, and advocacy for adult and online learners. When asked about the most comprehensive organization in the field of online education, a significant portion of online administrators (60%) and chief online learning officers (70%) identified UPCEA. These findings affirm that our members recognize not just UPCEA’s special role in leadership and administration but in online teaching and learning as well. But a deeper look into perceptions about UPCEA’s role in online education revealed a disconnect between members and nonmembers.

While the majority of leading online providers are UPCEA members, nonmembers appeared less aware of UPCEA’s involvement in online learning. This lack of association with online learning could be attributed to the perception derived from UPCEA’s full name at the time, University Professional and Continuing Education Association, which may have implied a focus solely on professional and continuing education. This posed a challenge because newcomers to online learning often fail to recognize the shared purpose and expertise with professional continuing education units.

But perception is a form of reality, and this disconnect in UPCEA’s brand awareness led us to conclude that the full name of the association no longer represented the full spectrum of who we are today, and where higher education is headed.

We strongly considered but ultimately rejected a complete name change. Rather than confuse the marketplace with yet another name and lose the strong brand awareness we have with our members, we decided to simply drop the full name altogether, and forged ahead with UPCEA as the official name of the association. No longer an acronym, but a name. The name of our association is now simply UPCEA. Additionally, we have refreshed our tagline to “The Online and Professional Education Association.”  This change both underscores our growing role as the most comprehensive organization in the online space and re-affirms our historic leadership in expanding access to higher education with professional programs designed to meet the needs and preferences of today’s learners, especially those seeking career advancement in one form or another. 

Our new positioning statement capitalizes on the twin strands of our profession: a mission to expand access coupled with an entrepreneurial approach to the work: Our members are continuously reinventing higher education, positively impacting millions of lives. We proudly lead and support them through cutting edge research, professional development, networking and mentorship, conferences and seminars, and stakeholder advocacy. Our collaborative, entrepreneurial community brings together decision makers and influencers in education, industry, research, and policy interested in improving educational access and outcomes.

UPCEA’s key focus areas were also reviewed and updated. Each of UPCEA’s Key Focus Areas will include development of relevant content, events, networks, and other resources associated with it.

  1. Leadership in Online Learning
  2. Professional & Continuing Education
  3. Alternative Credentials
  4. Marketing, Enrollment & Student Success
  5. Research & Consulting

This broad range of specialization–this comprehensiveness–is precisely what makes UPCEA such a valuable resource for the field. And make no mistake about it. The success of this field is vital, not only to the future of higher education but to advancing social mobility and economic competitiveness.

UPCEA’s journey of brand evolution serves as a testament to our adaptability and resilience in an era of profound change. It also reaffirms our commitment to driving progress and innovation in higher education for years to come.

A person (Jim Fong) smiles at the camera

By Jim Fong

Higher education has been in a state of flux for the past five years, trying to maintain the strengths of its business model while adapting to new market conditions. For many institutions, they are choosing to transform, acknowledging the beginning of the demographic cliff and an automated economy. Recent data from the National Student Clearinghousei shows that higher education has likely arrived at the cliff, despite undergraduate enrollments growing slightly by 2%. The data shows that much of the growth is a result of an uptick in community college enrollments, transfer students, dual enrollment high school students and credit certificate completers. Contrary to the growth, first-time student enrollments have actually declined by 3.6%. Further compounding this decline is the growing perception that a college degree has less value in a future economy fueled by automation and artificial intelligence.

As a result, many colleges and universities will need to re-examine not only their primary product, the degree; but how it serves the student of the future via the delivery of education, the credentials they offer, and how they engage prospects and enroll them into their processes.

UPCEA has made it a priority to help its members navigate uncertainty through data gathering and thought leadership. In addition to regular UPCEA research initiatives, such as its biannual salary, organizational and staffing surveys, and monthly snap polls, UPCEA has partnered with several corporate members to identify key research issues. The highlights of these research initiatives from 2023 follow, but they tend to focus on two major themes … 1) what external market forces are saying and 2) readiness of online and professional units to serve future markets. Major research findings on the external market include:

  • Colleges will need to tap into the complex adult learner market to address their fiscal commitments. With the number of eighteen-year-olds declining over the next decade plus, colleges and universities have few choices to reach enrollment and financial goals. They can try and improve graduation rates, but this number is already more than 85%. Further compounding this is a growing opinion in the media and social media channels that many or more jobs may not require a college degree in the future. StraighterLine partnered with UPCEA on a study of 1,106 adults with some college but no degree. What we found out was that the adult learner has many different profiles, personas or market segments. However, what is common across the majority of adult learners is a need for greater milestone recognition, which could be awarding stackable certificates on their way to a degree; as well as acknowledgment of prior learning for experiences which clearly address competencies required as part of a degree. These learners want a college degree, but 120 credits is a bridge too far — while milestones such as badges or certificates will help them in their current job and provide insurance should their studies be disrupted. This study can be found here.
  • The role of employers will be critical as higher education is redefined. They hold much of the purse strings regarding employee training. With the exodus of the baby boomer in the workforce, more training and education decisions are being made by Millennial managers and Gen X’ers in the C-suite. Collegis Education partnered with UPCEA on a survey of over five hundred employers. What we found was that employers want a greater place at the table. They believe that training and education is a two-way street and that both the employer and institution can benefit by greater involvement from the employer. This research shows that employers not only want input on defining what the real-world curriculum is, but also to improve communication, processes and relationships. In doing so, UPCEA believes that the main critique of higher education by employers will be resolved: cost, value and return on investment. The whitepaper can be found here.

These two major pieces of partnered research, along with the Voice of the Online Learner Report and the 2023 EducationDynamics Online College Students Reportiii  are essential guides to gauge adult learner and employer perceptions, beliefs and opinions pertaining to institutions of higher education, the programs they offer and services that surround them. These four studies are must-reads regarding the state of the online and professional education marketplace.  

The second emphasis of UPCEA-partnered research focused on institutional readiness and operational effectiveness. Addressing these issues will help institutional members identify and leverage market opportunities while avoiding its pitfalls. A joint studyiv by AACRAO, Modern Campus and UPCEA revealed that online and professional education units must work more closely with their registrars and other institutional stakeholders to overcome internal or operational barriers to capitalize on opportunities. A number of other partnered research studies focused internally on other improvement and process areas, including:

  • According to a joint study by The EvoLLLution, UPCEA and CAUCE, the role and impact that professional and continuing education units have on the greater institution continues to increase. The study also shows that progress is being made as to resources needed to innovate and develop new programs and credentials, but opportunities for improvement do exist, including the integration and accessibility of operational metrics and enrollment data, as well as needed staff positions (particularly in marketing).
  • Given advances in technology, modern marketing approaches are critical to reach both the adult learner and employer. An UPCEA study conducted with InsideTrack revealed that nearly one-in-five institutions do not track enrollment funnel metrics. The study also revealed that, either through intentional planning or lack of ability, the percentage of inquiries that become “stealth applicants” has increased since 2019. The institution either has no idea how the applicant found them or has done such a great job of branding and communication that encourages an applicant to bypass the inquiry process and go direct to an application. The research also shows cycle time or “pipeline time” for credit and noncredit programs. This measure is critical as it forces the marketing and program teams to plan advanced milestones and engagements upstream from a program start date.
  • Institutions need to improve digital marketing efforts, especially their websites and student experience. There were two studies that UPCEA partnered with Search Influence on, one was a groundbreaking 2023 study of search engine optimization and website readiness, while the second soon-to-be-released study was conducted in early 2024 and highlighted digital marketing costs at the inquirer or student acquisition level. The 2023 study identified that many units have strayed from having their websites designed around the student experience. Many of the 100 institutional websites studied performed poorly on parameters such as accessibility, link authority, having appropriate title tags or meta descriptions and overall site health or authority.
  • Although there is increased momentum for alternative credentials, many institutions are struggling to establish consistent and scalable processes for developing and pricing these programs. This UPCEA study, supported by a grant from Walmart, found that despite widespread acceptance of alternative credentials, many institutions do not yet view alternative credentials as a strategic priority. This is evident in that 71% of survey respondents didn’t know the gross revenue generated by alternative credentials at their institution. It is a significant challenge to make arguments for resources and strategic importance without having the data to inform and guide decision-makers. It is also important to emphasize that organizations with longer experience in alternative credentials show more pricing variability than newer entrants. As institutions mature in this process, increased efficiencies, and prolonged success, can be obtained.

 

What is clear is that the online and professional continuing education unit has the potential to save the institution. At minimum, these units will play a major role in the success of their institutions as higher education is reshaped. In the future, revenues and enrollments will be less likely to be fully dependent on standalone bachelors and graduate degrees and will be diversified through stackable credentials, such as certificates and badges. Another UPCEA partnered research effort with ISACA confirms industry demand and forecasts, including those done by HolonIQ, further solidifying the need for more flexible, stackable certificates. While currently cloudy, the future of higher education is starting to take form in that institutions must expand beyond the 15.1 million undergraduates by tapping into 250 million adults in the U.S. through more flexible and stackable credentials, as well as reach global markets, many of which have been quicker to adopt microcredentials and other forms and delivery of higher education. To do so, institutions are going to need to change, improve and rethink their operations, further solidifying the need for more flexible, stackable certificates. 

 

[i] https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/

[ii] https://universityservices.wiley.com/voice-of-the-online-learner-2023/

[iii] https://insights.educationdynamics.com/rs/183-YME-928/images/EDDY-online-college-students-2023.pdf

[iv] https://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are/newsroom/article/2023/07/24/new-research-from-aacrao-upcea-and-modern-campus-shows-barriers-affecting-effective-collaboration-between-academic-registrar-and-pce-unit

Photo of a person (Emily West) smiling at the camera

By Emily West

In the classic Disney movie Alice in Wonderland, one scene captivated me as a child: Alice, lost and bewildered in Tulgey Wood, desperately seeking direction amid nonsensical arrows and signposts. It is here that she first encounters the Cheshire Cat who, in his feeble attempt to provide guidance, leaves her even more confused than before. 

Entering the world of higher education can often feel like tumbling into Wonderland. Imagine a learner clicking through an institution’s website and struggling to figure out which path to take on their academic journey. They may stumble across unfamiliar terms like non-degree credential, stackable certificate, or credit for prior learning. Moreover, they may have difficulty finding and deciphering exactly what their options are and how they fit together. Often, the challenge is not a lack of pathways to choose from, but a lack of clear pathways to completion, further education, and/or employment. The task for higher education institutions is as simple as it is critical: Make academic pathways transparent from the first click. 

Not only is it important for the learner to have easy access to this information, but schools also reap the benefits of accessibility. EducationDynamic’s annual Online College Student Report, released in February 2024, reveals that accessibility to relevant information on a college’s website is a contributing factor for enrollment decisions. When considering enrollment in online programs, respondents weighed various factors, with a significant portion relating to pathways:  the availability of online programs (38%), program offerings that match their career goals (33%), and the length of time to complete their studies (32%). Notably, 23% of respondents said that ease of access to information on the institution’s website was important to them.  

Additionally, UPCEA and StraighterLine’s October 2023 report Disengaged Learners & Return Paths to Higher Education tells us that learners desire added layers of value in an educational program. Interest in enrolling in an undergraduate degree is heavily influenced by factors such as credit for prior learning (CPL), microcredentials, and stackability within degree completion programs. This data serves as compelling evidence of the impact of pathway transparency on program landing pages. 

 

Why Pathway Transparency Matters: 

Empowering Informed Decision-Making: Transparent pathways empower learners to make informed decisions about their academic journey. Clear information on program landing pages about course sequences and credit requirements help learners visualize the path they need to take, reducing the risk of wrong turns. Beyond that basic information, learners also want to know what other factors may shape their journey to completion. UPCEA and StraighterLine’s research reveals that stackable microcredentials have a profound effect on the decision to enroll in a degree program. Over three-quarters (76%) of respondents in that study said microcredentials that stack toward larger credentials would greatly increase (32%) or increase (44%) their interest in pursuing an undergraduate degree, further reinforcing why clear pathways matter. 

Reducing Anxiety and Stress: Navigating the maze of higher education can be stressful for learners. Transparent pathways alleviate anxiety by providing a clear roadmap, allowing learners to focus on their studies rather than getting lost in the woods. Without the need for extensive searching and deciphering, learners can allocate their time wisely, ensuring a smoother path from enrollment to program completion. 

Enhancing Retention and Reenrollment: Transparent information cultivates a sense of confidence and commitment among learners. When learners have a clear understanding of their academic journey, they are more likely to successfully complete their program. EducationDynamic’s report sheds light on a compelling statistic: Approximately 80% of respondents enrolled in certificate or license study programs expressed intentions to pursue further credentials or a degree in the same or related field of study. However, 31% of respondents were unsure whether their credential could be applied to future degree programs. This underscores the importance of institutions’ clearly communicating the stackable credentials they offer and how they integrate into other pathways at the institution. 

Connecting Pathways to Job Outcomes: The significance of transparency extends beyond academic pathways; it involves showing the link between education and career outcomes. Understanding that connection enables learners to tailor their studies to meet industry demands, acquire relevant skills, and ultimately boost their employability. The majority of respondents to EducationDynamics’s study had a career-focused motivation for pursuing their online education. Notably, 26% indicated that knowing a program aligned with their career goals would sway their enrollment decisions toward one school over another. As the job market evolves, learners increasingly value the workforce skills and specialized knowledge offered by microcredentials. A January 2024 report released by UPCEA and Collegis Education, The Effect of Employer Understanding and Engagement on Non-Degree Credentials, highlights heightened employer demand and the growing significance of microcredentials in today’s workforce.  This makes it more important than ever for learners to be informed about the educational pathways available to them, and how they align to their career goals. 

It is time for colleges and universities to take inspiration from Alice’s adventures and strive for transparency. By providing clear and well-marked pathways on program landing pages, institutions can empower learners to make informed choices, reduce stress, and undoubtedly influence their enrollment decisions.  

No Cheshire Cat required. 

Microcredentials – sometimes referred to as non-degree or short-term credentials – have grown in popularity, raising many questions about their worth.

In the U.S., the public has more familiarity with degrees than short-term credentials, says Marni Baker Stein, chief content officer at Coursera, an open online course provider.

“There’s a lot of information about short-form credentials out there on the internet that people can search for,” she says. “But one has to really make sure that you are reaching out to a trusted source because there’s so much misinformation out there around certificates and their value.”

Here’s what to consider before pursuing these credentials.

What Are Microcredentials?

The definition of microcredentials isn’t always clear, experts say. Generally, they are offered by schools, education companies and professional organizations and may be for credit or not for credit.

A microcredential “can be part of a degree program, like a stepping stone or a milestone within a degree program, or it can be completely untethered from what we consider academic credit courses or degree-seeking behavior,” says Julie Uranis, senior vice president of online and strategic initiatives at UPCEA, an online and professional education association based in Washington, D.C.

Read the full article.

A person (Andy Casiello) smiling

By Andy Casiello

When I was just beginning my career in higher education, after a couple of relatively short stints rebuilding television systems at two community colleges in Massachusetts, I landed the job of chief television engineer for the College of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The operation I worked within was then called the “Office of Extended Engineering Education”, or “OE3” to the engineering faculty. OE3 used videotaped recordings, and later, satellite technology through National Technological University, to transmit live engineering classes from the Amherst campus, which were then duplicated and shipped to students at industrial locations around Western Massachusetts and beyond. 

OE3 was my introduction to Distance Education. While there was ARPANET, CSNET, and BITNET, there was no Internet in those days. “Online” referred to work with editing broadcast quality master tapes vs “offline”, where we were using duplicated copies at lower quality to create an “edit decision list” prior to final production. 

My career goal at that time was to get to New York City, and to work for NBC in the television engineering operation. I had taken a few trips to NYC while I was doing my undergraduate coursework to bow at the foot of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, the home of RCA and NBC. My steps to NBC were apparently going to go by way of UMass, while I built my credentials in managing television studio infrastructures and staffing. 

I never made it to NBC, and that’s okay. I still go by there any time I’m in the city. As it turned out, my career has been in higher education. I finally figured that out about 20 years ago and I went on to invest in my own graduate education, with a masters in Instructional Design and a PhD in Higher Education Administration.    

From my early position at UMass, I became involved with National Technological University (NTU), a satellite technology based distance education institution, conceived of by the dean of engineering at Colorado State University. UMass was a member school, which allowed me to get to know the great folks at NTU. They eventually hired me to come to Colorado as their Satellite Network Director, and later, Vice President for Technology.  

Old Dominion University (ODU) was one of the 57 larger engineering schools who were NTU member schools too. Over the years I built a strong relationship with the distance learning folks at ODU, and I watched as they built and expanded their educational network, then known as “Teletechnet”. After 10 years at NTU, I joined the ODU leadership team, and eventually took over their entire distance learning operation. At ODU, I led a group of 165 staff and reported to the university Provost.  During my time at ODU, I converted the program from “Teletechnet” to “ODUOnline”, and grew enrollment from about 1,500 purely distance students, to over 6,500 fully online students in 2023.  

At the time I was at UMass, during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, “Distance Education” played a much smaller role in higher education. It was a vital role though, especially in engineering and health sciences, and related fields where the need for continuing education is extremely critical. Those of us involved then were, and still are, passionate about the purpose and execution of distance education. We had to fight hard for attention among the many critical areas in need of resources within our institutions.  

Today that fight for resources continues, however the fight for attention has become much less of an issue. This is especially true within the offices of an institution’s leadership, the budget offices and in enrollment management circles.  

I first got involved with UPCEA during my time at UMass, when it was then known as UCEA. In recent years UPCEA has grown to be a powerhouse in online learning leadership. I have found it to be an incredible network of amazing professionals, who all learn and share from and with each other. I was honored to be asked to take part in the development of UPCEA’s Hallmarks of Excellence in Online Leadership, a work that we are all quite proud of. I really recommend anyone involved in this field to spend some time with the hallmarks, as they are quite a comprehensive look at what needs to be considered when managing online education moving forward.  

As leaders of online and continuing education at colleges and universities, we now often find ourselves at the “tip of the spear” with regard to enrollment stability and growth, which often, therefore, equates to institutional fiscal health and growth. 

I recently had the opportunity to take part in an UPCEA evaluation of the organizational structure and performance of the online education divisions within a moderate-sized university in the mid-west region of the United States. What we learned from the leadership and staff at that institution was something that we’ve heard repeatedly in recent years: enrollment in online programs at their institution is critical to the current strategy and the very fiscal health of their university. 

UPCEA and many other organizations involved in higher education have been predicting and reporting on the demographic cliff that we are now facing head-on. UPCEA participants are probably very used to sharing concerns over the enrollment cliff, as well as other relevant factors such as increasing competition in online education, and the increasing costs related to the marketing and advertising of online programs. The factors of the reduction of individuals of traditionally aged prospective students, increasing competition of institutions reaching farther and farther from their own backyards, and the overall arms race in costly marketing and promotion of online programs are now converging to the point where many institutions are really feeling the pain. 

Why call it an “arms race”? To receive the best placement of our products within high-return marketing placement for pay-per-click ads, and search engine optimization (SEO), we compete against each other to receive top placement by Google and other platforms regarding search terms such as “management of business administration online” or “electrical engineering education”. We work hard, and pay dearly, to keep our institutions top of mind within our own regions, while we look to geofencing our marketing power into other regions with “look alike” populations with potentially high interest in our academic programs. 

Many of us with enrollment increases in online education have worked to create tuition revenue share arrangements within our institutions to increase the annual funding allotted to us, to feed this hungry area of marketing and advertising media purchases. We simultaneously grow our talented marketing teams and with it, program quality, while we refine our work in “improving the yield” with the enrollment performance of those programs. 

Ever increasingly, institutions have turned to online education as a savior as the demographic cliff and increased competition have eaten away at their campus enrollments. Where we used to look to “non-traditional” students who needed the flexibility of distance programs and courses, we’re now in an era of declined populations of traditionally aged students who are now also often demanding that same flexibility

A significant problem to late-comer institutions to online education is that they are reaching out at a time where enrollment declines in on-campus programs have negatively affected their ability to fund the growth of online programs on their campuses. 

In an UPCEA Industry Spotlight article, dated February 28, 2024, Kevin Phang, VP, Partnership Development, Marketing & Enrollment for Noodle, cited a X post from mathematics professor Robert Talbert, who argued that higher education needed to treat innovations the same way that businesses do, by continuing to develop and evaluate them, talking with users during the process. In his article, Phang noted that “you can’t wait for problems to arise before addressing them”. So true. It seems that there are quite a few institutions that should have been aware of the present issues within plenty of time to begin addressing them some years ago. In my experience, the very well-meaning institutions that I have been involved with, among many others, don’t put enough effort into forecasting past the current fiscal year, never mind the decade ahead that would be needed to prepare sufficiently for such dramatic changes in our environments. 

Among the various institutional leaders at colleges and universities, the institutions Chief Online Learning Officers (COLO) must, among many other talents and areas of responsibility, be among the few that take time to forecast into the future to assist the institution in navigating the choppy waters of enrollment stability and growth, quality of education, competition, and collaboration in higher education. This individual needs a seat at the table within the president’s cabinet and within the provost’s council, in communicating not only today’s realities, but what tomorrow will bring, and how to steer the institution through the unknown. Online education development needs financial resources, talented staffing, and smart partnerships. We cannot solve enrollment problems on campus without these resources. Institutional leadership must be made aware of the criticality of making real investments into the future of online education, and the need to do it now. 

In my mind, and to many of my colleagues, UPCEA represents an oasis in these times, where like minds and individuals undergoing similar situations and challenges can share with each other, learn from each other, and improve the overall health and wellbeing of our beloved institutions of higher education. Our members can help each other reinforce the reality that simply because you gave your faculty members a webcam, and made arrangements to secure Zoom accounts, you did not convert your programs to “totally online”. I shuddered one time when during the peak of the COVID pandemic, a respected colleague informed me proudly that they had moved their programs to “fully online” over a two-week period, as if that was the last consideration they had to give to that particular issue. 

As a member of UPCEA, we know that institutions really need us to be the voice of the future of education. None of us believe that classrooms will go away, and we don’t want that to happen. But technology isn’t going away, either. That’s a good thing as well. Those of us who take control of our opportunities to use these technologies to expand the excellent work of our faculty and institutions are guiding those institutions to a healthier, more productive, and more effective future. 

To be an effective chief online learning officer takes a lot of talents. You must know what is happening in the building next to yours and in operations around the world. You must be aware of global, financial, and technological change and advancement issues. You must understand what it takes to create the highest quality educational products, how to support students around the world, how to tell the stories of your institution and its great faculty and programs.  You must know what has happened before in higher education and what is coming next. You must understand the needs of faculty and students, as well as your partners in industry and the needs of the institution itself. You must fight for your institutions, internally and externally, and demand the most from yourself and your organization. You must lead from a position of knowledge, driven by data, communications, and relationships built on trust. 

These can be daunting demands, but with the help of organizations like UPCEA, you do not have to do it alone.  If you involve yourselves, you will not find your institution lagging woefully behind where others are leading or find yourself unaware that it takes more than a big webcam order to truly convert an institution to fully online. 

Again, I am grateful to our colleagues within UPCEA and our member schools who bring ideas, reports, results, and occasionally laughter and levity to our otherwise quite serious responsibilities to our students and to the world around us. UPCEA helps us to remember that we cannot wait for problems to arise before we begin to address them.  

UPCEA is currently seeking a full-time Controller for a fully remote position with the association.  

The Controller will oversee and manage all aspects of the organization’s accounting functions. This includes ensuring financial accuracy, compliance with relevant regulations, and providing timely financial reports for internal and external stakeholders. The Controller also plays a key role in supporting the Finance Committee by providing financial information and analysis to make informed decisions. 

View the position description here. Interested candidates should apply here. The application will be open until April 12, 2024, or the position is filled. 

Imagine, if you will, a time in the not-too-distant future in which AGI is firmly established in society and higher education faces the pressing need to re-configure and reinvent itself.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the advent of AGI is upon us. OpenAI includes in its mission that it “aims to maximize the positive impact of AGI while minimizing harm.” They recognize that AGI won’t create a utopia, but they strive to ensure that its benefits are widespread and that it doesn’t exacerbate existing inequalities.

Some say that elements of AGI will be seen in GPT-5 that OpenAI says is currently in pre-release testing. GPT-5 is anticipated to be available by the end of this year or in 2025.

Others suggest that Magic, the expanding AI developer and coding assistant, may have already developed a version of AGI. With a staggering ability to process 3.5 million words, Amand Anand writes in Medium “It is important to remember that Magic’s model is still under development, and it’s true capabilities and limitations remain to be seen. While the potential for AGI is undeniable, it is crucial to approach this future with caution and a focus on responsible development.”  

Meanwhile Google Gemini 1.5 Pro version is leaping ahead of OpenAI models with a massive context capability: “This means 1.5 Pro can process vast amounts of information in one go — including 1 hour of video, 11 hours of audio, codebases with over 30,000 lines of code or over 700,000 words. In our research, we’ve also successfully tested up to 10 million tokens.”  

Accelerated by the intense competition to be the first to achieve AGI, it is not unreasonable to expect that at least certain of the parameters commonly describing AGI will conceivably be achieved by the end of this year, or almost certainly by 2026.  AI researchers anticipate that an AGI system should have the following abilities and understanding:

“Abstract thinking.

Background knowledge.

Common sense.

Cause and effect.

Transfer learning.

And, AGI systems will possess some higher-level capabilities, such as being able to do the following:

Handle various types of learning and learning algorithms.

Create fixed structures for all tasks.

Understand symbol systems.

Use different kinds of knowledge.

Understand belief systems.

Engage in metacognition and make use of metacognitive knowledge.”

Given those characteristics, let’s imagine a time, perhaps in four or five years, in which AGI has been achieved and has been rolled out across society.  In that circumstance, it would seem that many of the jobs now performed by individuals could be more efficiently and less expensively completed by agents of AGI. Perhaps half or more of all jobs worldwide might be better done by AGI agents. At less cost, more reliability and instant, automatic updating, these virtual employees would be a bargain. Coupled with sophisticated robotics, some of which we are seeing rolled out today, even many hands-on skilled jobs will be efficiently and effectively done by computer. All will be immediately and constantly updated with the very latest discoveries, techniques and contextual approaches.

AGI is expected to be followed by Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI):

“ASI refers to AI technology that will match and then surpass the human mind. To be classed as an ASI, the technology would have to be more capable than a human in every single way possible. Not only could these AI things carry out tasks, but they would even be capable of having emotions and relationships.”  

What, then, will individual humans need to learn in higher education that cannot be provided instantly and expertly through their own personal ASI lifelong learning assistant? 

ASI may easily provide up-to-the-minute responses to our intellectual curiosity and related questions. It will be able to provide personalized learning experiences; sophisticated simulations; personalized counseling and advising; and assess our abilities and skills to validate and credential our learning.  ASI could efficiently provide record-keeping, in a massive database. In that way, there would be no confusion of comparative rankings and currency of credentials such as we see today.

In cases where we cannot achieve tasks on our own, ASI will direct virtual agents to carry out tasks for us. However, that may not fully satisfy the human-to-human and emotional interaction that seems basic to our nature. The human engagement, human affirmation and interpersonal connection may not be fulfilled by ASI and non-human agents. For example, some tasks are not as much about the outcome as they are the journey, such as music, art, and performance. In those cases, it is the process of refining those abilities that are at least equal to the final product.

Is there something in the interpersonal, human-to-human engagement in such endeavors that is worthy of continuing in higher education rather than solely through computer-assisted achievement? If so, does that require a university campus? Certainly, the number of disciplines and therefore the number of faculty and staff members will fall out of popularity due to suppressed job markets in those fields.

If this vision of the next decade is on target, higher education is best advised to begin considering today how it will morph into something that serves society in the fourth industrial revolution. We must begin to:

  1. Assess each of the fields for which we prepare students or aspire to prepare students
  2. Monitor the uptake of GenAI, AGI and ASI in those fields for the purpose of greater efficiencies and prospective layoffs / changes in hiring
  3. Avail ourselves of AI-driven predictive analytics to anticipate the shift in employment patterns
  4. Engage with business and industry to assess their anticipated needs
  5. Engage our university community to ideate potential value-added aspects that higher education could offer to new and emerging markets using our expertise and facilities
  6. Test our ideas through AI-powered analysis and projections
  7. Adapt our hiring today and employ upskilling/reskilling to best prepare current staffing for the future

Have you and your colleagues begun to consider the question of what you provide that could not be more efficiently and less expensively provided by AI? Have you begun to research and formulate plans to compete or add value to services that are likely to be provided by AGI/ASI? One good place to begin such research is by asking a variety of the current Generative AI apps to share insights and make recommendations!

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed’s Transforming Teaching and Learning blog.