I wrote a post several weeks ago about UF Online, partially based on a phone interview with the executive director Betty Phillips.
Several weeks ago the University of Florida Online program opened for the Spring 2014 semester, accepting 600 transfer students, and the new program will accept Freshmen starting August 2014. This announcement comes just 2 years after the Florida legislature commissioned a study from the Parthenon Group on how to best leverage online programs in the state, and this program is probably one of the highest profile new online programs in the US within the past few years (along with California’s online initiative, Open SUNY, SJSU / Udacity and GaTech / Udacity). [snip]
What UF Online is, however, is an exclusively-online baccalaureate program leading to a UF degree for lower costs than the traditional on-campus experience. This is about expanding capacity and access to a research university, and the program aims to meet the same academic standards as the traditional UF experience . . .
Well it seems like the situation in Florida changes rapidly in multiple directions. Just two and half months after she officially took the new position, Betty Phillips has abruptly resigned. By all appearances, this move was unexpected as the University of Florida appears to have been caught flat-footed. The Gainesville Sun reports:
But less than three months after she officially began as director of UF Online on Jan. 1, Phillips — the wife of former UF Senior Vice President and COO Win Phillips — is no longer in charge of that program.
In an administrative memo sent out to faculty after 9 p.m. Tuesday, UF Provost Joe Glover didn’t even mention Betty Capaldi Phillips by name.
“Due to changes in personnel, effective immediately, Associate Provost Andy McCollough will become responsible for the administration of UF Online. Consequently, issues related to this program should be directed to his attention,” Glover’s memo said.
The memo was not posted on the Administrative Memo web page until late Wednesday afternoon.
The article describes that Phillips plans to return to ASU in a teaching role, focusing on research into personalized learning. I’m not sure if personal or HR issues were involved, but the article described other details:
Phillips had given up her job as provost and executive vice president of ASU — a position she held since 2006. She took a substantial pay cut to return to UF — from the $425,000 she earned as provost at ASU to $285,000 salary to run the online program here.
Meanwhile, her husband, Win Phillips, stepped down as COO in December and took a position with Innovation Square, UF’s technology startup incubator downtown.
When I did my interview, I had asked about the UF Online staff now that the program has started (they accepted 583 transfer students in January). Phillips’ replied that there was only two people, including herself. This resignation is much more significant than a single leader of a functioning program office departing – this is a complete change of the program office.
I’ll share more information as it becomes available.
Update (3/14): Carl Straumsheim has an article at IHE today that includes interviews with Andy McCollough from UF and Todd Hitchcock from Pearson. It’s well worth reading.
Until Florida can fill the position, W. Andrew McCollough, associate provost for teaching and technology, will lead UF Online. He said Phillips has chosen to return to ASU as a faculty member.
“She, in discussing the matter with me, had evinced after she had gotten herself immersed in the management of and the directing of UF Online that her first love at this point was functioning as a faculty member and doing research on online learning,” McCollough said. “It became evident to her that she would have difficulties fitting that preference into her waking hours here at the university.” [snip]
“The work doesn’t stop because the person in the director’s seat changes,” McCollough said. “The truth of the matter is in the work that is being done by faculty and instructional designers and videographers and web developers and marketing. The people that are doing the real work continue to do the real work.”
I personally think the explanations are part of the story – something doesn’t add up here.
The post Major Change at UF Online: Exec director abruptly resigns appeared first on e-Literate.
As Michael mentioned, we have posted the last episode in the pilot e-Literate TV series with the topic of moving to a team-based course design for a flipped classroom usage. This episode provides an excellent opportunity to hear the first-hand experience of a faculty member going through this transition for the first time. Vanessa Perry of GWU had no real expectations or understanding of what this transition would encompass.
The adoption of team-based course design presents a cultural barrier for traditional institutions, as shown by a wall in the graphic that was the basis for a 2012 EDUCAUSE Review article.
Vanessa describes what this barrier, or wall, feels like as you attempt to cross it, as seen in this snippet from the interview (full transcript and video and graphics available at the full episode on e-Literate TV).
Starting at 2:44, emphasis added.
Now, given those changes, which they sound great on paper, but one of the issues that’s very interesting that I’d like to get your thoughts on, is it’s fine to say, “There’s a reason for change,” but then there’s the issue of, “Well, we need to actually go through the change,” particularly for a faculty member where you’re really presenting the material, guiding students.
So, tell me a little bit about the change from your perspective of what you used to teach—how your method used to be of teaching—and then getting into this flipped classroom method, particularly with working with a team for design. How did that change things?
Well, you’re right, it’s one of those things that does sound good on paper. And so, I’d heard that it was really easy and “All you’ve got to do is take the stuff that you have in your PowerPoints and they’re just going to record it.
It’ll be fine; it will be very much like what you have always done.” Well that is so absolutely not the case. It’s nothing like what we’ve always done.
Traditionally, what I did was I sort of accumulated materials over time. I had my PowerPoint slides, and I would get up, and I would talk.
And I would talk for 60 minutes or 75 minutes or for however long, and I would stop, and I would ask students questions. And it was semi-interactive, but it was pretty much traditional talk, one-way kind of communication.
What I had to do was go back through those materials and figure out: What are the key elements that I’m best at delivering via lecture?
Versus: Now, what are the elements that are probably best delivered some other way? “Let’s put this package together.”
This is a production; it’s not like a class in the way that I had thought about it. And that was a real transformation—a real evolution—but it was certainly not easy at first.
Later on (starting at 6:12) Vanessa describes how she was very skeptical going into the process.
Oh, I was one of the people running around saying that this online instruction is never really going to work. And I thought it was sort of this low-quality alternative.
And I actually thought of it the same way that I thought about taking driver’s ed refresher courses; I had no real experience so all I could draw on were a couple of anecdotal situations, which were kind of these low-quality kinds of lecture capture, automated voiceover kinds of delivery mechanisms. And so, I was completely skeptical.
And when our school decided that we were going to take this sort of strategic step, I was totally against it.
In Vanessa’s case, eventually she saw the benefits and even applied the new methods to her face-to-face course (starting at 9:32).
I had to teach a face-to-face course, and I decided to use the digital community version in the face-to-face course, and it went so well. It went far better than, I think, teaching that course face-to-face has ever done before.
Vanessa’s case is but one example of this digital transformation in teaching, but I think her story describes several situations that many faculty members face. It is very useful to hear and understand these issues.
There’s much more to hear in this interview – see the full episode here.
The post First-hand experience moving to team-based course design appeared first on e-Literate.
In our final episode of the pilot series, Phil interviews George Washington University Chair and Associate Professor of Marketing Vanessa Perry about her experiences developing a flipped class, with a focus on the team course development effort. Long-time followers of the blog know that Phil and I think the transition to team-based course design is both a major barrier and a major inflection point for institutions moving into digital education.
The post New e-Literate TV Episode: Flipped Classrooms and Team-based Course Design appeared first on e-Literate.
The 20 Million Minds Foundation is starting a new blog, and for topics of mutual interest, Michael and I will be posting articles several times a month on their site and occasionally cross-posting here. The first article of mine went up last week.
Two Approaches to Watch in Remedial Education Innovation
It is no secret that the current approach to remedial (or developmental) courses does not work. According to a study by Complete College America (see original for footnotes documenting sources):
“The numbers tell a dispiriting story. Half of all undergraduates and 70 percent of community college students take at least one remedial course. Too many of these students never overcome being placed into a remedial course. Only about a quarter of community college students who take a remedial course graduate within eight years. In fact, most students who are referred to remedial education do not even complete the remedial sequence: One study found 46 percent of students completed the sequence in reading and only 33 percent completed it in math.”
Following the maxim that “if it doesn’t work, try something else”, two community colleges on opposite coasts – Miami-Dade College in Florida and Cerritos College in California – are trying to change the game. What can we learn from these two divergent examples?
Read the whole article here.
The post New post at 20MM: Two Approaches to Watch in Remedial Education Innovation appeared first on e-Literate.
In our latest episode, the penultimate in the pilot series, we explore the topics that are likely to be moving up the curve of the hype cycle this year—adaptive learning and learning analytics. Like many of the topics in the pilot series, we could have made an entire series about this one. (And maybe we will at some point.) But since the first adaptive learning product faculty will run into is most likely to be from a textbook publisher, we interviewed McGraw Hill’s Al Essa and Pearson’s Jason Jordan about their respective takes on what this trend is all about.
The post New e-Literate TV Episode: Adaptive Learning and Learning Analytics appeared first on e-Literate.
I have been invited to participate on the Digital Working Group of the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U’s) General Education Maps and Markers (GEMs) program. (As we will see, AAC&U loves its acronyms.) GEMs is a really interesting project made even more interesting because of who is doing it. AAC&U is a fundamentally conservative organization in the sense that their purview is to help conserve that which is valuable and distinctive about the American college education. GEMs is part of a larger alphabet soup of AAC&U initiatives that are clearly about outcomes-based education and arguably about competency-based education (CBE). (For more on the distinction between these two, see Phil’s earlier blog post on the subject.) The organization’s leadership is frank about the fact that these have been at least partly defensive moves; given all the pressure for increasing accountability, the Association felt that academics should lead the charge on defining what that should mean before others define it for them. (GEMs is the latest in a series of related efforts to that end.) But the trail they are blazing has the potential to be pretty radical. Maybe even more radical than the organization has fully come to grips with.
I’m going to be doing some of my homework for the working group here on the blog in future posts, but before I do that, I’d like to take the time in this one to outline what I understand to be the goal and context of GEMs. Fair warning: I’m not sure that my understanding is correct. I am new to AAC&U and, to be honest, they were not terribly good at articulating the goals for GEMs at the first summit. (I am not the only participant who had trouble parsing the goals and priorities.) With any luck, some AAC&U veterans will read this and correct any mistakes I make along the way.Pre-History
In the beginning, there was LEAP (Liberal Education & America’s Promise).1 Started in 2005, it is the precursor to the other programs I will be talking about. I’m not going to spend a lot of time parsing that pre-history (either for you or for myself), but I find this definition from the vision paper to be emblematic of all these related efforts:
Liberal Education: An approach to college learning that seeks to empower individuals and prepare them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. This approach emphasizes broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g., science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth achievement in at least one specific field of study. It helps students develop a sense of social responsibility, strong cross-disciplinary intellectual and practical skills (e.g., communication, analytical and problem-solving skills), and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings.2
This, I think, is the heart of the matter. This is what they view themselves as defending. In an important sense, LEAP, GEMs, and the other initiatives I will write about here are all efforts to adapt the means of achieving a liberal education to the changing times in order to preserve the core values.
Several initiatives flowed out of LEAP, the first of which is the Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP). On the one hand, DQP appears to conform to the principles of Competency-Based Education that SPT Malan articulated in his article describing the CBE (and referenced in the aforementioned post by Phil):
- Explicit learning outcomes with respect to the required skills and concomitant proficiency (standards for assessment)
- A flexible time frame to master these skills
- A variety of instructional activities to facilitate learning
- Criterion-referenced testing of the required outcomes
- Certification based on demonstrated learning outcomes
- Adaptable programs to ensure optimum learner guidance
Some of these points are fairly radical relative to the traditional structure of an undergraduate liberal arts degree, and I want to be clear that AAC&U appears to embrace these radicalisms. For example, they approvingly distributed a copy of Paul LeBlanc’s Inside Higher Ed essay advocating for CBE, including an explicit call for “a fundamental change at the core of our higher education ‘system’: making learning non-negotiable and the claims for learning clear while making time variable” [emphasis in original]. The two areas where they appear to want to push back against the current popular interpretations of CBE are (1) they have a more expansive notion of the educational goals of CBE which includes moral education and a grounding in academic disciplinarity, and (2) they advocate for rich and authentic (and, implicitly, often human-graded) assessment. They also view the core value proposition for students somewhat differently. The typical reason people embrace CBE is to support educational access. The idea is that students should be able to test out of competencies that they already know (or can learn through non-tuition-costing experiences) and thus reduce the time and expense of a college degree. While there is nothing I’ve seen in the AAC&U documents that precludes this notion, their emphasis is on educational quality. One of the uses of DQP is as a kind of nutritional labeling for a degree program. DQP focuses on five dimensions: applied learning, civic learning, intellectual skills, broad integrative knowledge, and specialized knowledge:
This graph can be used as the basis for defining the distinctive characteristics of a particular school or degree program, like so:
The Oregon University System is doing these “spiderweb graphs” for programs across all of their colleges. Which brings me to another goal for DQP; namely, it functions as a tool around which campuses can build conversations regarding common educational goals. As I said in my post about Pearson’s efficacy framework, the magic of any rubric is in the norming conversation.
As you might imagine, these competencies are defined at a very high level in order to be useful across a broad range of institutions. For example, one goal (objective? competency?) under the heading of “Broad, Integrative Knowledge” is “Produces an investigative, creative or practical work that draws on specific theories, tools, and methods from at least two core fields of study.” This is a perfect example of the balancing act that the AAC&U is attempting to perform. On the one hand, they need to be specific enough that the criteria are meaningful and enable at least first-approximation comparisons of the similarities and differences among and between institutions. (AAC&U seems understandably cautious about embracing comparisons between institutions too whole-heartedly, but that’s really what the spiderweb graph above enables.) On the other hand, they need to provide enough flexibility in the framework to support the kind of faculty-, discipline- and academic-centric vision for higher education that they are fighting to preserve. (One of the unresolved and unspoken tensions in this work, which I’ll touch on again later, is that the AAC&U does support values like academic freedom that are near and dear to faculty but do not necessarily take a faculty-centric view of the world if you define “faculty-centric” from a labor perspective.) They need to provide enough specificity to enable campus communities to understand how to proceed yet enough flexibility to allow each campus to make the framework work within their own cultural and academic peculiarities.VALUE and GEMs
Nowhere does this balancing act become more apparent than in assessment. It’s easy enough to create mom and apple pie goals that everybody can agree to, in part because everybody can pretend that they share the same definitions while traveling down divergent paths. The Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) framework is therefore where the rubber meets the road in an important sense. VALUE is intended to be
a quality assurance framework to help institutions, systems, and accreditors determine to what degree students are making progress toward the expected competencies, and whether students meet graduation-level standards for demonstrated achievement.
At its heart, VALUE is a set of 16 rubrics across the following areas:
- Inquiry and analysis
- Critical thinking
- Creative thinking
- Written communication
- Oral communication
- Quantitative literacy
- Information literacy
- Problem solving
AAC&U claims that they “ensure a high level of reliability and validity of the results”, presumably based on inter-rater studies that they’ve done. (Like I said, the magic of the rubric is in the norming conversation.) But again, the organization works hard to strike a balance between specificity and flexibility. Here is an example of a criterion from their “Integrative Learning” rubric:CapstoneMilestoneMilestoneBenchmark 4321 Connections to discipline: Sees (makes) connections across disciplines, perspectivesIndependently creates wholes out of multiple parts (synthesizes) or draws conclusions by combining examples, facts, or theiroies from more than one field of study or perspective.Independently connects examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.When prompted, connects examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.When prompted, presents examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.
This is pretty specific without being totally rigid. You can see where this level of specificity is likely to get fairly high inter-rater agreement among colleagues at the same institution or a peer institution while still allowing for some differences of interpretation between, say, an Ivy League school and a community college.
Now, having defined a set of competencies and a set of rubrics for assessing those competencies, there is the slight problem that the overwhelming majority of schools currently implement neither, have the curricular and support structure for neither, and are missing the tools to get students from one to the other. That’s where General Education Maps and Markers (GEMs)3 comes in. It is intended to be the connective tissue between DQP and VALUE.
The heart of this work seems to be in the Design Working Group, which is charged with coming up with case studies and exemplar practices of how institutions can build gen ed programs that are compatible with DQP and VALUE. I don’t have a clear sense of what their final product will look like, other than a collection of examples, but maybe a collection of examples is a good enough place to start. Their work is supported by the Equity Working Group and the Digital Working Group.Wanted: A Theory of Change
One of the questions asked by a colleague on the Digital Working Group, after hearing a few hours of background presentation the first day of the first meeting, was “What is your theory of change?” That’s my concern too. At first blush, I very much like what I see in DQP and VALUE. In fact, I think these frameworks collectively represent the beginnings of the robust yet realistic vision for the future of liberal arts education that I’ve been yearning for so dearly. But I would like them to be more than a vision. So far, AAC&U can only talk about a handful of pilots and experiments with them. I’m not sure how they and GEMs will move into broader adoption. There are two dangers here. The first is that they will end the way the vast majority of grant-funded, association-created academic frameworks end up, if we’re being honest. In a drawer somewhere.4 The other danger is that they will get uptake but will run into one or more of several fairly obvious buzz saws. For example, if we are serious about the notion that competencies are rigorously enforced but time to completion is variable, that has deep implications for the academic labor force. Who is talking to the unions about this? Or the faculty senates? Another danger is based in the fact that there is an enormous amount of money being invested into a quite different vision of CBE. There is huge potential for confusion and co-optation. If AAC&U is to be successful, they will need to engage with the broader academic community early and robustly.
I worry because my first impression of the organization is that they it is fairly insular with a relatively uneven sense of what the world outside is like or how to interact with it. For example, one of the AAC&U leaders was absolutely flabbergasted that I had never heard of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and that I wasn’t embarrassed to admit it. And of course, I undeniably am a remedial student in some ways, being new to both the AAC&U and some of the broader conversations and efforts that intersect with theirs. But I am hardly the only person to have never heard of NSSE. Nor does the organization seem to know how to help people like me become more aware of their world, what goes on in it, and why we should care about it. There are sparse stubs of articles on Wikipedia about NSSE and AAC&U itself and nothing at all on DQP, VALUE, or GEMs. The descriptions of DQP, VALUE, and GEMs on their own web sites were disjointed, and it is hard to figure out exactly how they are connected to each other (which is one reason to encourage crowdsourcing of descriptions through something like Wikipedia). There was no hashtag for the GEMs meeting and no awareness of how social media could have been an aid to the work going on in the room. In order for me to download the 16 VALUE rubrics, I had to go through a complicated and poorly designed ecommerce checkout process even though the rubrics are free. I could go on. Within the world of AAC&U participants, they seem to do a pretty good job of building (non-technological) social networks. But if you’re outside the tent, then you’re waaay outside the tent. And there is a lot of world outside that tent.
I want to be careful not to overgeneralize here; I met any number of highly aware and networked people at the GEMs meeting, particularly on the Digital Working Group. But as an institution, the AAC&U does not seem to be wired for the kind of outreach that it will need to do if DQP, VALUE, and GEMs are to have the impact that they should.
And so, with the blessings of my working group chair Randy Bass (who, by the way, is fantastic), I will be blogging my exemplar homework for the GEMs Digital Working Group, and I will be inviting you to submit your own exemplars, as well as any comments, concerns, criticisms, or kudos you might want to add. I hope that my GEMs colleagues will also join in. Let’s see if we can create an exemplar of our own.
- In addition to loving acronyms, AAC&U also apparently loves ampersands.
- On the other hand, AAC&U does not appear to be a stickler for consistent use of the Oxford comma.
- What? No Ampersand in General Education Maps and Markers?
- “This is the way the world ends…”
The post Outcomes-Based Education and the Conservative Radicalism of the AAC&U appeared first on e-Literate.
We’ve just published our fourth episode in the e-Literate TV pilot series. This one is about CourseWare. Frequent e-Literate readers will know that this is a topic Phil and I think is important and growing in importance. You’re most likely to have heard of the products from the big publishers—Pearson’s CourseConnect, McGraw Hill’s SmartBooks, Cengage’s MindTap, and Wiley’s WileyPLUS—but there are also a lot of smaller entrants that are worth paying attention to.
For this episode, I got to interview two of my favorite people in ed tech: Soomo Publishing’s David Lindrum and Lumen Learning’s Kim Thanos. Both of these folks run small companies that are doing good and novel work with the courseware product category without having huge technology budgets or whizzy adaptive engines. And they have some really interesting things to say about how the advent courseware changes the way we have to approach the development of curricular materials.
The post New e-Literate TV Episode – CourseWare: What Comes After the Textbook appeared first on e-Literate.
We have just published our third episode in the first ETV series—an interview with Stanford University’s Amy Collier about MOOCs. As is often the case with these episode, there are lots of different angles we could have taken. This episode is really the answer to a colleague who asks, “What is this thing that Tom Friedman has been talking about?” Amy does a terrific job of delivering a hype (and anti-hype) antidote.
We’ll have broader coverage in the full series about MOOCs we’ll be releasing after this current one, developed from the interviews that Phil and I conducted at the MOOC Research Initiative Conference.
In late January I wrote here and here about the US Treasury Department, through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), blocking access to Coursera courses by students in Syria, Cuba, Iran and Sudan (also see Kris Olds article here and IHE article here). The reason for the decision appears to be that MOOCs were classified as educational services instead of informational materials. At the time, edX was permitted to operate in those countries based on their reliance on getting licenses approved by OFAC, whereas Coursera was relying on a broad interpretation by OFAC. edX president Anant Agarwal even posted on a blog a somewhat congratulatory note:
At edX, we are pleased to announce that no one, in any country, is blocked from taking one of our courses, and we have never blocked students from receiving education on the edX platform because of where they live.
EdX has worked for many months with the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets and Control (“OFAC”) and the U.S. State Department to determine how we can assure that no one in any country is blocked from taking an edX course.
Now comes word that edX has been forced by OFAC to block access to several courses for students in Cuba, Iran and Sudan. From The Harvard Crimson late yesterday:
Due to federal regulations, edX plans to block students in Cuba, Iran, and Sudan from taking an upcoming online course on aerodynamics and modern aircraft design, according to a blog post written by edX president Anant Agarwal on Monday.
“We are deeply sorry to have to block any student anywhere from taking an edX course,” Agarwal wrote in the post. “This is completely antithetical to the vision and foundational values of edX and all [massive open online courses]. We will continue to work diligently with the U.S. government until every student, from any country in the world, can take any course they choose on edX.”
The course, entitled “Flight Vehicle Aerodynamics” and taught by MIT faculty, covers advanced physics and aircraft design. It is scheduled to begin classes on March 5.
edX will now have to block IP addresses from these three countries within the specific courses. It is not clear why Syria is not included in the list.
Coursera, for its part, recently hired Google’s Director of Legal for several product lines as the new General Counsel. It is not clear whether this hire is directly related to their recent problems distributing the courses in Syria, Cuba, Iran and Sudan, but the hire should help them navigate the growing problems with foreign operation.
In my opinion, these rulings (first the broad interpretation for Coursera then the specific license interpretation for edX) indicate that the US Treasury Department intends to regulate MOOCs and other online education ventures based on student location. Just as the for-credit online education world is having to deal with State Authorization rules based on the state residency of students, now open education has to consider the country of residency for students.
At least based on government regulators in the US, anytime and anywhere access to education might become less of a reality.
The post edX forced to block access to students in Cuba, Iran and Sudan appeared first on e-Literate.
The New Yorker published an article yesterday titled “A MOOC Mystery: Where Do Online Students Go?” which tried to explain low MOOC completion rates by comparing the situation to the General Educational Development (GED) exam. Right off the bat, the article conflates MOOCs with “online students”. MOOCs are but one form of online education, and a very recent one at that. Worse, however, is that the entire basis for the article is quite flawed – GED results do not give much insight into MOOC students patters, and it turns out there is not much of a mystery in the first place.
The hook in this article seems to be the coincidence of two numbers [emphasis added]:
When the Times declared 2012 the “Year of the MOOC,” it seemed, in the words of the paper, that “everyone wants in,” with schools, students, and investors eager to participate. But, as can happen in academia, early ambition faded when the first few assessments were returned, and, since then the open-online model appears to have earned an incomplete, at best. An average of only four per cent of registered users finished their MOOCs in a recent University of Pennsylvania study, and half of those enrolled did not view even a single lecture. EdX, a MOOC collaboration between Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has shown results that are a little more encouraging, but not much. And a celebrated partnership between San Jose State and Udacity, the company co-founded by Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford professor turned MOOC magnate , also failed, when students in the online pilot courses consistently fared worse than their counterparts in the equivalent courses on campus.
Some of the problems encountered by MOOCs echo those of an earlier model of alternative learning. Last month, the General Educational Development exam, or G.E.D., was replaced by a more challenging computer version. Like MOOCs, the G.E.D, which has been around since 1942, is partially an attempt to save time and money in education, and to extend opportunity to students outside the traditional classroom. As a marker of high-school equivalence, it holds the promise that an entire academic career can be distilled into the knowledge required to pass a five-part exam.
But according to a September, 2013, American RadioWorks report, of the forty per cent of G.E.D.-holders who go on to college, fewer than half complete more than a year, and only about four per cent earn a four-year degree. The additional rigor of the redesigned exam might not be the solution. The military tried a similar approach when, in the nineteen-seventies, it raised the G.E.D. scores required for entry. Even then, G.E.D. applicants quit or were thrown out of the service at a higher rate than enlistees with high-school degrees.
Get it? Oh, the possible conclusions we can draw now that we’ve established this remarkable insight!
There might be just a few problems with this analogy, however.
- The GED is targeted at high school students who did not or could not complete their high school education and graduate; MOOCs appeal for the most part to working professional adults who already have at least a bachelor’s degree (according to the same U Penn Study cited by the New Yorker, an “overwhelming 83 percent already have a two-year or four-year degree, the study showed” and “44 percent have advanced degrees”).
- The “half” and “4%” numbers in the GED study are based on whether or not they got a four-year college degree; other several pilot programs, MOOCs offer no credit towards a degree.
- The GED is an official government program to grant a credential; MOOCs are based on open education in that anyone can sign up, and for the most part the learners do not care about certificates or any acknowledgement of completion.
- The GED is a test – passing the test is the point, not learning; MOOCs are learning opportunities – for the majority of learners, access to educational content is the point, not testing.
- The SJSU / Udacity courses were not MOOCs – they were non-massive, controlled access online courses.
Before we go on, let me point out that I am not making an argument that MOOC completion rates are a non-issue, nor am I arguing that MOOCs are solving higher education problems. What I am pointing out is that the New Yorker is basing its whole article on a faulty analogy.
Not only is the analogy flawed, but the focus on course completion in MOOCs in this simplistic fashion is also flawed, as was pointed out as the #1 takeaway in the HarvardX / MITx study linked by the New Yorker article:
Takeaway 1: Course completion rates, often seen as a bellwether for MOOCs, can be misleading and may at times be counterproductive indicators of the impact and potential of open online courses.
The researchers found evidence of large numbers of registrants who may not have completed a course, but who still accessed substantial amounts of course content. Across the 17 MITx and HarvardX courses covered in the reports, 43,196 registrants earned certificates of completion. Additionally, another 35,937 registrants explored half or more of the units in a course without achieving certification.
The author does acknowledge later in the article this exact flaw in the basis for his own article:
But students may go into an online course knowing that a completion certificate, even offered under the imprimatur of Harvard or UPenn, doesn’t have the same worth. A recent study by a team of researchers from Coursera found that, for many MOOC students, the credential isn’t the goal at all. Students may treat the MOOC as a resource or a text rather than as a course, jumping in to learn new code or view an enticing lecture and back out whenever they want, just as they would while skimming the wider Web.
But by this point, the author has already drawn several conclusions from his pithy insight, so who cares about context at this point?
If the New Yorker wants to explore the MOOC mystery, it turns out that it’s not such a mystery at all what is happening with MOOC students, or at least there is a fair amount of recent and ongoing research into the subject. Here is a graphic that captures some of the MOOC student patterns that is in alignment with more formal studies at Stanford and MIT.
But even better, it turns out that the U Penn study was actually presented at the MOOC Research Initiative Conference. That’s right – an entire conference based on real research into MOOC student patterns. From e-Literate TV, we have a YouTube channel populated with interviews with the MRI conference grantees – there’s a ton of insight available there. Here’s one in particular where Michael interviews Martin Weller from the Open University about their research data:
Unfortunately, I’m sure the New Yorker article will get plenty of airplay. I just hope more people ask some tough questions before jumping into the resulting debates.
Update: I should point out that several of the author’s conclusions about MOOCs have real merit, especially the need for more social interaction as well as MOOCs being incomplete but having potential. These points can be lost, however, by the faulty analogy and setup.
The post A response to New Yorker article on ‘A MOOC Mystery’ appeared first on e-Literate.
The other day, I wrote a post about community-negotiated focus and how we want e-Literate TV to be a kind of “choose your own adventure in ed tech” experience, both for individuals and for campus communities. You can get a sense of how we’re trying to do that in the first series with Phil’s interview of Inside Higher Education Editors Doug Lederman and Scott Jaschik. They talk about the changing landscape of education, why different topics in educational technology come up in the first place, and how the ways in which those topics are raised can have either a positive or a negative impact. This is the anchor episode for the series and is intended to provoke discussion that would lead to the group finding a focus in their collaborative ed tech investigation that’s important to them.
With the emergence of large-scale MOOCs over the past few years, it has become common to hear discussions of online education in terms of access and scale – access to low or no cost courses and scale of tens or hundreds of thousands of students. Of course MOOCs are but one form of online ed, and with 2U, Inc filing for an IPO in 2014, we have another example of a very different, and lucrative, approach to online education. 2U’s model extends high-tuition, elite programs to a small group of students. To get a sense of this approach, consider four remarkable numbers that are based on 2U’s S-1 filing.
To provide context for these numbers, 2U’s model is somewhat unique, as described in Techonomy:
. . . 2U offers weekly live online (synchronous) classes and a sophisticated social networking platform that lets students and instructors interact. Most degrees offered through 2U also require completion of physical components such as global MBA residencies, student teaching apprenticeships, and, for nursing students, operating room training on campus and clinical experience in their communities. [snip]
Another difference is that 2U classes are small—just 10 to 15 students and a professor onscreen in a Brady Bunch grid—so admission is selective.2U makes $10,000 – $15,000 in revenue per student per year
From our inception through December 31, 2013, a total of 8,540 unique individuals have enrolled as students in our clients’ programs. [p 1]
For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013, our revenue was $29.7 million, $55.9 million and $83.1 million, respectively. [p 2]
Not all of the 8,540 unique individuals are still enrolled as of 2013. However, if we assume (for simplicity’s sake) that 8,000 current students are generating $83.1 million in tuition revenue, that gives a lower bound of ~ $10,000 per student per year. It’s more likely that 2U had closer to 5,500 students (based on 84% retention rate and some students completing their programs), which gives an upper bound for 2013 of ~ $15,000 per student per year.2U makes an average of $10 million in revenue per customer per year
2U made $83.1 million in revenue with just eight of its nine customers (the Berkeley program did not start in 2013 – see p 90). This one is simple math.
Despite this revenue, 2U is still losing money – a lot of it.
For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013, our net losses were $24.9 million, $23.1 million and $28.0 million, respectively [p 2]
How can this be? It turns out that it is quite expensive to start up these high-touch online programs. As described in Techonomy in fall 2012:
Shouldn’t eliminating on-campus costs such as classrooms, dorms, and parking lots translate to savings for students? Paucek says, “The notion that online is somehow a cost-saving mechanism is simply incorrect. You’re only saving cost if you make the experience low quality. We partner with a school that wants to become preeminent in their field online. We will not partner with a school if they expect to see online be discounted in any fashion.”
He says 2U spends up to $20 million ramping up a single school’s program before seeing a return. The company, which started with $98 million in VC funding, employs more than 400 [up to 600 in fall 2013]. Between 50 and 80 are dedicated to each degree program, and 2U offices on every partner’s campus offer services beyond IT. For example, for Georgetown’s online midwifery M.S., Paucek notes, “there’s no digital baby; we find a critical placement for the student in Iowa or Oregon or Florida or wherever they are.”2U’s customers make an average of $10 million in net revenue per year
How much does each customer make in program revenue? We don’t know, but we can guess. 2U’s business model is based on revenue sharing with the customer, but the company is very careful to not state publicly what percentage of tuition revenue goes to the company and what goes to the school. The master services agreement for USC (which accounts for more than half of 2U’s revenue) explicitly redacts the percentage (note that 2U was formerly called 2tor):
2tor will be entitled to [***]% of the Net Program Proceeds [p 28]
However, we do get a sense from an interview of CEO Chip Paucek in Inc.The company is now working with eight universities in total, across ten graduate degree programs. 2U’s contracts with the schools last some 10 to 15 years. 2U also recently announced a program called Semester Online, which offers for-credit undergrad courses on a class-by-class basis. Though Paucek won’t reveal revenue, he says that 2U, now a 600-employee company that’s raised $102 million in venture capital, has booked $230 million in tuition across all its programs this year. Through a revenue share agreement with the schools, 2U will make more than half of that.
In an article about the upcoming UC Berkeley data science program, there is this claim:
Between the 2U and Berkeley course offering, UC Berkeley will be receiving 65% of the initial course fees, a number that may increase slightly as time goes on.
My best guess is that the schools and 2U split revenue somewhat evenly, so let’s assume 50% goes to the schools. If this is true, then consider that 2U’s customers are making on average $10 million of net revenue per year (after subtracting out 2U payments).
Update (2/24): Clarified language on net revenue.
In terms of bookings, 2U’s customers booked $230 million in tuition revenue in 2013.2U’s customers are charging $17,000 – $45,000 per student per year in tuition
These are not programs aimed at reducing the cost of education. These are elite programs charging high tuition with the promise of high-paying jobs for the graduates. UNC charges $89,000 for a two-year program, UC Berkeley $60,000, USC $34,000, and Georgetown $77,000 (all for two-year programs).
And all of this business comes from a quite small base of less than 9,000 students and nine customers as of the end of 2013. Once seen in this light, it is clear that 2U’s concept of scale for online education is in scaling revenue – for itself, for its customers, and for its students.
While doing research for a blog post about 2U filing for an IPO, I ran across a presentation given last year by the Villanova University Distance Learning Task Force for a Faculty Forum. In this presentation I found one of my graphics that was shared on e-Literate and in EDUCAUSE Review.
I’m flattered that they would find this information useful, and this usage is why I usually include a footer to many of the graphics showing that they are licensed under creative commons to facilitate sharing. All I ask is for attribution and occasionally no derivatives.
However, not only was there no attribution in the presentation, but the footer has been stripped off (I do not know if this was done by Villanova personnel or if they found a stripped-down version). Maybe that was just an unfortunate situation.
But wait, just five slides down I find another graphic, same situation.
And another two slides down, a third.
At this point, I’m starting to think there is more than coincidence at play here.
Listen, I’m all for re-sharing information, and that exactly why I use the creative commons license. What is troublesome is that this comes from a Distance Learning Task Force, which should be a source of guidance and best practices around use of digital materials.
I realize that I could have just quietly sent a note to Villanova asking them to fix the graphics and provide attribution, but two aspects have led me to also blog on the subject:
- The faculty forum was last year, and providing attribution now is of declining value (it should still be done, but that is only part of the issues); and
- I see this behavior too often, even from groups that should know better. Mathieu Plourde and his MOOC poster might be the king of removed footer / lack of attribution. While he and I have disagreed about the importance of keeping the footer, I think the issue is bigger than either one of our interests.
Note: everyone makes mistakes, and I’m sure that I have erred before in attribution (and will fix where I find or am notified of mistakes).
The post Villanova Distance Learning Task Force: A case study in missing attribution appeared first on e-Literate.
One of the biggest growth areas in education has been the Online Service Provider market. Alternatively known as Online Education Service Provider (OESP), School-as-a-Service, or Online Program Management (OPM), this market offers services to traditional colleges and universities that are creating online programs. In August I listed the LMS used by the top OSP providers, and while the data for this table is a year old, it does give a sense of who the major players are.
How big are these companies? EmbanetCompass had estimated 2012 revenues of $130 million when Pearson acquired the company for $650 million. Deltak had estimated 2012 revenues of $54 million when Wiley acquired the company for $220 million. Academic Partnerships had estimated 2012 revenues of $43 million. I don’t have updated 2013 numbers, but various estimates have this market growing at 50% or more per year.
Yesterday 2U, Inc submitted a S-1 document with the SEC, registering the company’s intention to go public in 2014. While 2U is filing under the “emerging growth company” provisions that allow them to reduce how much information is publicly disclosed, the filing does provide more insight into both the company as well as the OSP market.
Below are some notes from the S-1.
We are a leading provider of cloud-based software-as-a-service solutions that enable leading nonprofit colleges and universities to deliver their high quality education to qualified students anywhere. Our innovative online learning platform and bundled technology-enabled services provide the comprehensive operating infrastructure colleges and universities need to attract, enroll, educate, support and graduate their students. By leveraging our solutions, we believe our clients are able to expand their addressable markets while providing educational engagement, experiences and outcomes to their online students that match or exceed those of their on-campus offerings. [p 1]
This description highlights a recurring theme in the document, where 2U primarily describes its offerings first as a cloud-based platform and secondarily as technology-enabled services. This approach is somewhat reversed from some of the competitors which primarily present themselves as providing services with enough technology to make it happen. 2U really pushes the platform play in this document, and the platform is built around Moodle as the customized LMS.
Our clients deploy our platform to offer high quality educational content, instructor-led classes averaging ten students per session in a live, intimate and engaging setting, and a rich social networking experience, all accessible through proprietary web-based and mobile applications. [p 1]
2U repeatedly emphasizes the nature of supporting intimate, small classes as a competitive differentiator.
Full course equivalent enrollments in our clients’ programs grew from 14,099 during the twelve months ended December 31, 2011 to 31,338 during the twelve months ended December 31, 2013, representing a compound annual growth rate of 49%. We measure full course equivalent enrollments in our clients’ programs by determining, for each of the courses offered during a particular period, the number of students enrolled in that course multiplied by the percentage of the course completed during that period. Any individual student may be enrolled in more than one course during a period. From our inception through December 31, 2013, a total of 8,540 unique individuals have enrolled as students in our clients’ programs. [p 1]
Here 2U has laid out the total number of students enrolled in their courses. These are not large numbers in terms of enrollment (8,540 unique students in total), but the growth rate is what the company is banking on (49% per year).
Our clients are leading nonprofit colleges and universities, and eight of our nine clients with whom we have contracted to offer 2U-enabled graduate programs . . . [p 1] [snip]
Grow International, Undergraduate and Doctoral Presence. We believe that there is significant market demand for our solutions as colleges and universities worldwide seek to extend their brands by accessing the growing global market for higher education. Our existing client programs serve students in over 50 countries. In addition, we believe there is a meaningful opportunity to provide high quality online education experiences to undergraduate students and to expand our graduate offerings into doctoral programs. [p 6]
These sections echoes a point I made in the comments to Keith Hampson’s blog that the OSP market to date has been largely defined by outsourcing major components of masters level programs signed by colleges. Over time, this market appears to be shifting towards university-wide needs often at the bachelors level and also to international markets.
Our compensation from our clients consists primarily of a specified share of the tuition and fees paid to our clients by students in the programs we enable, which we believe aligns our interests with those of our clients. This revenue model, combined with long contractual terms, enables us to make the investment in technology, integration, content production, program marketing, student and faculty support and other services necessary to create large, successful programs. Our client contracts generally have initial terms between 10 and 15 years in length, and, since our inception, all of the clients that have engaged us remain active.[p 2]
This section describes 2U’s business model of revenue sharing and long-term contracts. I personally think this model will have to change over time, but this is a good description of today’s market.
This table (pulled from page 12 and edited for format) highlights the company’s revenue ($83 million in 2013), rapid growth, and financial losses. Keep in mind that 2U has previously raised $96 million $102 million in venture capital according to CrunchBase CEO Chip Paucek in an Inc. article.
There’s more information in the filing and that will come out in the press between now and when 2U goes public, but for now this S-1 filing gives more insight into the OSP market.
Update (2/22): Found more reliable source on VC funding and updated source and amount. Changed title from “go public” to IPO language.
The post 2U registration for IPO offers insight into Online Service Provider market appeared first on e-Literate.
The goal of e-Literate TV (ETV) is to help school communities develop a working consensus around how they can use learning technologies to achieve important educational goals. For example, we’d like to be able to help schools that are motivated to improve student retention to identify appropriate ways that technology can help them do that. To do that, we have to do more than just provide relevant information. We have to provide it in a structure that encourages a productive culture of conversation and consensus building about these sorts of issues. It’s education as change management.
In order to make ETV useful in that way, we’re developing (inventing? rediscovering?) a number of design principles. The first one, which I’ve written about before, is differentiated engagement. The ways in which deans, advising faculty, non-advising faculty, technology support staff, and other stakeholders need to be involved in a conversation about, for example, adopting a retention early warning system are different, as are the needs and interests of different individuals who have these roles. With the layered, hyper- and transmedia approach that we are able to take with our episodes, we can invite people to participate in the ways and to the degrees that are appropriate for them. We can help them find their zones of proximal curiosity, encouraging them to explore the issues a little further than they might have on their own while also recognizing that each individual is going to have limitations on how much they need or want to know.
A second design principle we’re exploring is what we can call “community-negotiated focus.” Every school community is going to have its own collective zone of interest within a given topic. For example, Berkshire Community College may only be interested in MOOCs in cases where they are being used in an attempt to support remedial students or underserved populations, while Colorado State University Pueblo may be interested in how MOOCs are being used to flip classrooms and related labor issues. Once again, one size does not fit all. Phil’s recent post about our commitment to release the ETV videos under a Creative Commons license is intimately related to our goal of enabling ETV to be a resource that particular academic communities can customize to serve their particular needs.Scratching Your Itch
One of the lessons we learned between filming the first ETV series and filming the second one is how valuable it is to have more than one episode to explore different facets of an issue. The first series—the one we’re in the process of releasing now on the ETV website—is a smorgasbord of separate episodes. And while each episode is good in and of itself, what we can do in one 10- to 15-minute episode is limited. For example, we have an interview with the spectacular Amy Collier on MOOCs. But no matter how spectacular Amy may be, we had to make basic decisions about what would be most useful for most stakeholders in one short episode about MOOCs. With only a small canvas upon which to paint, we were pretty much forced to ask basic questions about what this MOOC thing that everybody’s talking about actually is and why faculty should care about it (when there are many more interesting questions that we would have also loved to ask Amy). Note that the answers to these questions are not going to be deeply useful in the hypothetical MOOC conversations at CSU Pueblo or BCC that I proposed above. In contrast, what we think you’ll see in the MOOC Research Initiative series of videos is a rich set of conversations that provide fuel for these two conversations and more.
We will take these videos as raw materials, boil them down into five or six episodes that we think give us a good cross-section of the kinds of angles that different academic communities will want to discuss, and then build up layers of transmedia and discussion questions to help foster exploration of those angles. Different academic communities will gravitate toward different episodes, depending on their collective interests and needs.
But we won’t get to do this kind of treatment for all possible conversations. (In fact, we probably won’t even be able to think of all possible conversations.) For example, we are not currently planning on doing an episode on the application of MOOCs for support of remedial students and underserved populations. It’s not that the angle isn’t interesting or important enough; we just don’t have enough data yet to build a robust conversation around it.
But we do have some information on it in our interviews. For example, we have Tawanna Dillahunt from the University of Michigan talking about her study about how MOOC learners who say they can’t afford a formal education are using MOOCs to support their economic mobility:
And we have Phil talking to University of Wisconsin’s Bob Hoar and Natalie Solverson talking about their experience with a remedial math MOOC:
And we have Pat James from Mount San Jacinto College and Eva Schiorring from the California Community Colleges talking about their project to design a MOOC that’s effective for teaching developmental writing:
If your academic community would find these experiments relevant and important to talk about, then you should be able to do that. And you can. All of these videos are released under a Creative Commons Attribution license. If you want to remix them into your own episode that’s appropriate for your academic community, then you can. Maybe for good measure, you’ll want to throw in Caroline Rose from Carnegie Mellon University talking about her research in using technology to encourage supportive and productive learning conversations among large groups of students, because you think that’s particularly important for developmental students in a MOOC:
The pathways through the ETV content can be negotiated by the community as they discover the pieces that are most relevant for them. At the end of the day, this isn’t a curriculum that people have to study and master. It’s a territory that they have to explore together in the service of meeting larger goals.
In December 2013 Michael I attended the MOOC Research Initiative Conference (aka #MRI13 or “The greatest MOOC conference in the history of MOOCs”). Thanks to a grant funded by the Gates Foundation through Athabasca University, we are creating three episodes of an upcoming e-Literate TV series based on the conference. We expect to release these episodes in March.
As part of developing material for the episodes, we interviewed a number of research grantees and ed tech luminaries. We had some great guests who spoke about what we have learned from MOOCs, what the potential applications are, what the downsides are, and where open education could and should go in the future. It was a unique opportunity to get so many well-informed people in one place on a common topic.
Today we releasing these videos through the e-Literate TV YouTube channel. These videos all carry a Creative Commons license to facilitate sharing and repurposing of the material.
One reason that we are providing these full interviews along with the upcoming episodes is our belief in open data, even when the data is a conversation rather than a set of statistics. While the e-Literate TV episodes will be edited down to show relatively tight stories, some people will want to watch the entire video interviews on particular topics.
The other primary reason for releasing the full interviews is to support people who want to use the material on their campuses or systems or even policy-making groups.
Some of the interviews highlight interesting research on the application of open online courses, while others get into free-wheeling discussions of the future of open education. One of my favorite videos is the longest one – an interview that Michael conducted with George Siemens and Jim Groom. Take a look:
There a lot more to see at the YouTube channel, or you can view below (sorry for the watermark and aspect ration below – I’m working out some issues with the plugin).
Require Flash player
Several weeks ago the University of Florida Online program opened for the Spring 2014 semester, accepting 600 transfer students, and the new program will accept Freshmen starting August 2014. This announcement comes just 2 years after the Florida legislature commissioned a study from the Parthenon Group on how to best leverage online programs in the state, and this program is probably one of the highest profile new online programs in the US within the past few years (along with California’s online initiative, Open SUNY, SJSU / Udacity and GaTech / Udacity).
I had the opportunity to interview the executive director of UF Online, Dr. Betty Phillips, for additional background information. I’ll describe that interview along with my observations in a future post.
In the e-Literate TV episode on online learning, Michael described the importance of focusing on the problem to be solved (at the 9:44 mark).
The key, really, is to look at the problem you’re solving in the context of the particular college or university—what they have in terms of their strengths and resources, and what they’re missing—and then figure out what’s the best match between the problem and the solution.
With that view in mind, let’s explore what UF Online is and what it isn’t.Background
Two years ago the Florida state legislature funded the state university system’s Board of Governors to study online education in Florida, and by extension, to recommend how to expand online programs in a centralized fashion. The Parthenon Group’s report was delivered in November 2012, and the state Strategic Planning Committee made the following recommendations in February 2013.
At its February 13 meeting, the Committee recommended that the full Board:
1. Use the Strategic Plan preeminence metrics to designate the university which would create a separate arm to provide online degree programs of the highest quality, and that funds be requested of the Legislature to support such an effort. The preeminence metrics would be those passed by the 2012 Legislature and approved by the Board for use in the 2012-2013 university workplans. Further, the selected university would create an innovation and research center to (1) ensure the State is a leader in the development of cutting-edge technology and instructional design for the online programs and (2) conduct research that would help strengthen online degree programs and the success of online students.
These recommendations led to legislation that was signed into law in April 2013 creating UF Online, as described by a Reuters report [emphasis added].
Public university students in Florida next year will be able to start working toward college degrees without actually going to college, under a law Governor Rick Scott signed on Monday in front of educators and business lobbyists.
The state-run University of Florida plans to start a series of online bachelor’s degree programs next year, with $15 million start-up funds for 2014.
Until now full-time online education has just been available to elementary and high schools in the state.
“This bill transforms education in Florida,” said House Speaker Will Weatherford, a Republican who has long been a proponent of “virtual learning” in public schools.
“Now, we will be home to the first fully accredited, online public research university institute in the nation,” said Weatherford. “These bold higher-education reforms will help increase Florida’s global competitiveness and ensure our students have meaningful opportunities after high school.”What It Isn’t
Before moving on, I want to correct the record on a few items here.
No, this is not the first time Florida public higher education will offer exclusively online programs. In fact, Florida leads the nation in the number of exclusively online students in higher education and is 12th based on percentages. Just a detail there, Reuters, but nice fact checking. For reference see this data from IPEDS on US public 4-year institutions for undergraduate students (more tables at the link). You can sort the table by selecting the appropriate cell in the header row – ‘exclusively online’ in this case.Summary of US public 4-year institutions and online education enrollment by state for Fall 2012, from IPEDS
State# exclusive online courses# some but not all online courses# at least one online course# no online coursesTotal Enrollment TOTALS 323,687 1,069,072 1,392,759 4,924,789 6,317,548 FL 48,746 147,708 196,454 410,342 606,796 TX 23,341 81,590 104,931 381,926 486,857 MD 23,098 12,410 35,508 86,614 122,122 NJ 20,210 15,525 35,735 106,850 142,585 OH 18,162 38,265 56,427 207,665 264,092 NY 11,439 31,460 42,899 272,684 315,583 AZ 10,084 41,958 52,042 61,892 113,934 KS 10,074 12,904 22,978 53,526 76,504 UT 9,059 25,058 34,117 72,327 106,444 IN 7,937 29,570 37,507 134,992 172,499 NV 7,797 18,452 26,249 50,252 76,501 AL 7,654 33,998 41,652 86,050 127,702 CO 7,144 14,469 21,613 113,510 135,123 PA 6,797 53,565 60,362 167,979 228,341 NC 6,749 28,274 35,023 134,804 169,827 OK 6,674 24,668 31,342 69,667 101,009 WA 6,148 10,903 17,051 106,922 123,973 GA 6,099 35,668 41,767 187,009 228,776 MI 5,933 25,309 31,242 198,631 229,873 KY 5,849 19,222 25,071 69,319 94,390 WI 5,676 19,965 25,641 123,865 149,506 OR 5,468 9,950 15,418 64,636 80,054 LA 4,644 20,364 25,008 83,844 108,852 MA 4,103 11,313 15,416 75,870 91,286 ND 3,971 6,292 10,263 22,689 32,952 NM 3,956 11,323 15,279 32,095 47,374 MN 3,928 19,871 23,799 73,284 97,083 TN 3,898 27,297 31,195 82,620 113,815 AR 3,765 16,583 20,348 54,955 75,303 MO 3,695 24,533 28,228 80,507 108,735 VA 3,147 21,553 24,700 136,445 161,145 MS 2,968 8,878 11,846 50,984 62,830 SD 2,881 4,739 7,620 18,984 26,604 IL 2,841 20,223 23,064 123,712 146,776 AK 2,424 4,472 6,896 13,596 20,492 ME 2,220 5,835 8,055 16,602 24,657 ID 2,211 10,842 13,053 25,965 39,018 WV 2,182 10,925 13,107 42,886 55,993 NE 2,009 10,014 12,023 31,746 43,769 CT 1,647 3,571 5,218 47,274 52,492 MT 1,327 5,004 6,331 27,187 33,518 CA 1,178 61,485 62,663 497,709 560,372 HI 1,102 3,477 4,579 18,916 23,495 WY 1,028 1,611 2,639 7,390 10,029 NH 1,019 1,347 2,366 21,526 23,892 IA690 6,918 7,608 49,283 56,891 VT252 1,078 1,330 15,216 16,546 SC174 10,945 11,119 73,798 84,917 DE174 1,110 1,284 19,836 21,120 RI115 6,446 6,561 13,827 20,388 DC-132132 4,581 4,713
Within the State University System (the body which is leading the study), University of Central Florida, Florida International University and University of South Florida all have significant presence in exclusively online programs at the bachelor’s level.
In addition, the UF Online will not have the “first fully accredited, online public research university institute in the nation” as stated by the House Speaker. At the very least Penn State’s World Campus and Arizona State’s ASU Online have beat them to the punch by over a decade.
Even the official UF Online site repeats this fallacy:
UF Online is the first fully online four-year bachelor’s degree offered by a leading national research university.
Update (2/19): Well that was quick. UF Online has corrected its website by removing this statement.
Penn State in particular, which ranks higher than the University of Florida, might have an argument with this statement.What It Is
What UF Online is, however, is an exclusively-online baccalaureate program leading to a UF degree for lower costs than the traditional on-campus experience. This is about expanding capacity and access to a research university, and the program aims to meet the same academic standards as the traditional UF experience, as described in its web site’s FAQ page:
There will be no difference in content and rigor between UF Online courses and other courses offered by UF. In many cases courses will be the exact same with a special online section designated for UF Online students.
Regarding the lower cost (from the Reuters article):
The online courses will cost no more than 75 percent of in-state tuition for regular classes at the University of Florida.
The online university degree programs are part of an education package pushed by Scott and the state’s Republican party leadership that they say will more closely link curriculums with the needs of employers.
This positioning is significant, as online programs should ultimately save money. Furthermore, UF Online has grand ambitions as described in the Gainesville Sun last fall.
The University of Florida’s online bachelor’s degree program will start off with a small number of students and it will operate in the red for the first few years but ramp up to 24,100 students and millions in profits within 10 years, administrators told the board of trustees this week.
UF was given a legislative mandate to create an online baccalaureate program, with $10 million in startup money and $5 million a year for the next five years.
The 10 year forecast based on an enrollment of approximately 24,100 in the 10th year, with a 57 / 43 mix of in-state / out-of-state students will produce a $14.5 million net margin in the last year. The forecast would indicate a negative net margin in 4 of the early years. However, the cumulative fund balance at the end of 10 years is expected to exceed $43.5 million. Major recurring costs include marketing, recruitment and retention and, [sic] delivery expenses. The forecast indicates current-year self-supporting [sic] reached by year 7.
The overall initiative includes a significant research component. This future effort is described in the UF Online Comprehensive Business Plan (see page 15 of PDF from the September 2013 meeting):
The opportunity to work on the leading edge of educational development demands research commitment. UF Online will respond with a Research Center and research programs dedicated both to discovery and application. The current nascent notion of adaptive learning, modular terms, and personalized learning pathways will be placed in the implementation “bucket” for pilot and application even as we push further in the use of technology and the knowledge of neuroscience. Research is never complete without dissemination and application. The resident programs will be th early recipients of well-developed research; research advances which will be subsequently shared nationally. However, our online students will not be “guinea pigs”; the advances we incorporate will have passed the tests of experimentation and value added.How It Works
Based on my interview with Dr. Phillips, UF Online provides its own student marketing and recruitment, but once a student applies, they go into the traditional admissions process for the University of Florida. Once admitted, students take courses taught be UF faculty with the same academic standards as the on-campus experience. This gets to the claim of UF Online to be a fully-online program using the same quality standards (particularly admission and academic rigor) as a selective university.
EmbanetCompass (owned by Pearson) has a contract as an online service provider to support UF Online. This agreement extends EmbanetCompass’ current support of UF through approximately eight masters-level online programs run by individual colleges. The role of the company as described in the Campus Technology article:
Meanwhile, Pearson will provide UF Online with technology, recruitment marketing, enrollment management and student support and retention services. Pearson will also provide e-textbooks if instructors request them, as well as support for research in UF’s Online Research Institute.
Keep in mind that this program is just starting (and in fact the basic plan is less than a year old), so many of the details still need to be worked out.
Full disclosure: Pearson is a client of MindWires Consulting.
Phil and I are thrilled to announce the release of our pilot e-Literate TV episode.
One thing you’ll want to pay attention to is the set of buttons in the upper left-hand corner of the TELLING STORY player:
These buttons correspond to the three modes available to you. From left to right:
- Watch is a lot like a closed captioned YouTube experience. The focus is on the video.
- Discover still puts a lot of emphasis on the video, but it also will selectively show related links and graphics. If any of them catch your fancy, you can click on them to take a deeper dive.
- Explore mode is for when you want the video to be playing in the background but you’re really focusing on the transcript and the supplementary resources (or “transmedia”).
We’re pretty excited about these capabilities and are eager to hear from you about how they work for you and how you might use them. They look beautiful on tablets, too!
In terms of content, we’re only launching one episode for now because we want to flight test the technology before we put out the full series, but we expect to publish the rest in about two weeks.
This one happens to be just Phil and me, but most of these episodes will be conversations with other people. You can get a good sense of what this will feel like from the videos we shot (with our partners IN THE TELLING) at the MOOC Research conference. These will be both released on their own and incorporated into an e-Literate TV series.
For example, here’s Phil’s interview with Dave Cormier about different kinds of MOOCs and their different uses:
Here’s my interview with Simon Buckingham Shum about how analytics can help us learn more about student learning, both in MOOCs and in other types of online learning experiences:
And here’s my interview with Stanford’s Keith Devlin talking about why he is passionate about MOOCs:
Phil and I will have a lot more to say about ETV in the coming days, and we’re very interested in your feedback. For now, since we’re prompting for a specific feedback question at the end of the episode on the ETV site, please give us your comments on it that aren’t related to the prompt question right here. In the coming days, we intend to add richer and broader discussion capabilities directly to the site.
Last week I shared data tables for online education at US public 4-year institutions, with additional data for Florida. Now that I’m getting the process reasonably efficient for analyzing this data, there is some room for requests (hmm, slippery slope here).
@PhilOnEdTech First the praise, now the beg. How soon til 2 yr public school data?
— Jim Luke (@econproph) February 9, 2014
Since Jim teaches in Michigan, let’s review the 2-year data with additional data on his state.Basic Institutional Data for Public 2-year Institutions from IPEDS Listing of US public 2-year institutions and summary of Fall 2012 online education enrollment, from IPEDS InstitutionStateExclusively Online StudentsStudents w some but not all onlineStudents w no onlineAll Students TOTALS 547,928 1,092,908 4,092,065 5,732,901 Ilisagvik CollegeAK244751122 Prince William Sound Community CollegeAK225087159 Marion Military InstituteAL--378378 Reid State Technical CollegeAL-47408455 Lurleen B Wallace Community CollegeAL82671687 1,440 Jefferson Davis Community CollegeAL30274730 1,034 Snead State Community CollegeAL389 1,016 803 2,208 George C Wallace State Community College-SelmaAL284576811 1,671 J F Drake State Technical CollegeAL2125832959 Alabama Southern Community CollegeAL11151 1,019 1,181 H Councill Trenholm State Technical CollegeAL17174 1,207 1,398 Chattahoochee Valley Community CollegeAL28292 1,325 1,645 Northeast Alabama Community CollegeAL264 1,137 1,349 2,750 Central Alabama Community CollegeAL115409 1,374 1,898 Enterprise State Community CollegeAL106345 1,715 2,166 Bevill State Community CollegeAL240720 2,511 3,471 Northwest-Shoals Community CollegeAL52412 2,767 3,231 Bishop State Community CollegeAL105484 2,773 3,362 Lawson State Community College-Birmingham CampusAL39408 2,777 3,224 Southern Union State Community CollegeAL202 1,756 2,845 4,803 James H Faulkner State Community CollegeAL230 1,017 2,965 4,212 George C Wallace State Community College-DothanAL161600 3,466 4,227 Gadsden State Community CollegeAL440 1,551 3,609 5,600 Shelton State Community CollegeAL92574 4,266 4,932 George C Wallace State Community College-HancevilleAL347 4,910 4,960 Jefferson State Community CollegeAL 1,036 1,628 5,198 7,862 John C Calhoun State Community CollegeAL601 1,550 6,539 8,690 Rich Mountain Community CollegeAR48252332632 College of the OuachitasAR82231459772 Ozarka CollegeAR267547496 1,310 Southern Arkansas University TechAR39812496906 Cossatot Community College of the University of ArkansasAR220390502 1,112 Arkansas State University-NewportAR371343586 1,300 Arkansas State University-Mountain HomeAR185217629 1,031 East Arkansas Community CollegeAR97246715 1,058 University of Arkansas Community College-BatesvilleAR104346773 1,223 University of Arkansas Community College-HopeAR73348773 1,194 Phillips Community College of the University of ArkansasAR53192792 1,037 South Arkansas Community CollegeAR141417844 1,402 Arkansas Northeastern CollegeAR85299 1,043 1,427 Black River Technical CollegeAR171785 1,058 2,014 Southeast Arkansas CollegeAR35217 1,171 1,423 Mid-South Community CollegeAR1098 1,323 1,431 North Arkansas CollegeAR94359 1,561 2,014 University of Arkansas Community College-MorriltonAR31281 1,741 2,053 National Park Community CollegeAR156570 2,027 2,753 Arkansas State University-BeebeAR344991 2,231 3,566 NorthWest Arkansas Community CollegeAR799 1,817 4,533 7,149 Pulaski Technical CollegeAR 2,375 2,783 5,680 10,838 Tohono O'Odham Community CollegeAZ--174174 Rio Salado CollegeAZ 10,261 212360 10,833 Northland Pioneer CollegeAZ359479878 1,716 Central Arizona CollegeAZ 1,423 2,827 1,583 5,833 Arizona Western CollegeAZ 2,503 3,302 1,637 7,442 Cochise CollegeAZ749827 2,199 3,775 Coconino Community CollegeAZ251475 2,335 3,061 Mohave Community CollegeAZ761 1,198 2,832 4,791 South Mountain Community CollegeAZ118554 3,343 4,015 Yavapai CollegeAZ 1,159 1,720 3,408 6,287 Eastern Arizona CollegeAZ256737 4,078 5,071 GateWay Community CollegeAZ361668 4,967 5,996 Pima Community CollegeAZ 3,519 20,550 5,231 29,300 Paradise Valley Community CollegeAZ292843 5,521 6,656 Estrella Mountain Community CollegeAZ550 1,112 5,554 7,216 Scottsdale Community CollegeAZ553 1,447 5,865 7,865 Phoenix CollegeAZ 1,099 1,692 6,592 9,383 Chandler/Gilbert Community CollegeAZ565 1,570 8,774 10,909 Glendale Community CollegeAZ830 2,275 12,562 15,667 Mesa Community CollegeAZ 2,127 4,025 14,890 21,042 Los Angeles County College of Nursing and Allied HealthCA--208208 Lassen Community CollegeCA710309792 1,811 College of the SiskiyousCA305678817 1,800 Feather River Community College DistrictCA195284940 1,419 Cerro Coso Community CollegeCA 2,340 714965 4,019 West Hills College CoalingaCA747665972 2,384 Barstow Community CollegeCA 1,056 636 1,023 2,715 Palo Verde CollegeCA909352 1,247 2,508 Copper Mountain Community CollegeCA45271 1,283 1,599 Coastline Community CollegeCA 5,130 1,212 1,363 7,705 Charles A. Jones Career and Education CenterCA-- 1,369 1,369 Lake Tahoe Community CollegeCA235327 1,728 2,290 Downey Adult SchoolCA-- 1,733 1,733 Columbia CollegeCA128328 2,004 2,460 Woodland Community CollegeCA171112 2,014 2,297 Mendocino CollegeCA448634 2,115 3,197 West Hills College LemooreCA624751 2,157 3,532 Porterville CollegeCA279513 2,653 3,445 College of the RedwoodsCA177372 2,699 3,248 Taft CollegeCA800865 3,415 5,080 College of AlamedaCA599345 4,018 4,962 Crafton Hills CollegeCA55322 4,113 4,490 Berkeley City CollegeCA474576 4,282 5,332 Canada CollegeCA339769 4,286 5,394 Los Angeles Southwest CollegeCA299505 4,460 5,264 Shasta CollegeCA 1,056 2,050 4,559 7,665 Napa Valley CollegeCA195792 4,636 5,623 Yuba CollegeCA713976 4,794 6,483 West Valley CollegeCA 1,195 3,050 4,798 9,043 Contra Costa CollegeCA151598 4,818 5,567 Oxnard CollegeCA696939 4,836 6,471 Merritt CollegeCA414332 4,857 5,603 Gavilan CollegeCA156770 5,199 6,125 College of MarinCA172479 5,289 5,940 El Camino College-Compton CenterCA613694 5,297 6,604 Cuyamaca CollegeCA 1,029 1,014 5,399 7,442 West Los Angeles CollegeCA 1,818 1,812 5,577 9,207 Solano Community CollegeCA685 2,228 5,615 8,528 Mission CollegeCA963 1,497 5,707 8,167 Las Positas CollegeCA666 1,452 5,723 7,841 Ohlone Community CollegeCA632 2,053 5,793 8,478 Folsom Lake CollegeCA686 1,004 5,997 7,687 Hartnell CollegeCA302992 6,214 7,508 Imperial Valley CollegeCA10271 6,245 6,526 Allan Hancock CollegeCA 1,405 1,604 6,635 9,644 Los Medanos CollegeCA205681 6,643 7,529 Evergreen Valley CollegeCA228566 6,787 7,581 College of the DesertCA234 1,073 6,807 8,114 Norco CollegeCA650659 6,850 8,159 Los Angeles Harbor CollegeCA731 1,115 6,890 8,736 San Diego Miramar CollegeCA 1,914 1,284 6,909 10,107 Cuesta CollegeCA503 1,120 6,914 8,537 College of San MateoCA709881 6,986 8,576 San Jose City CollegeCA419882 7,060 8,361 Skyline CollegeCA549813 7,081 8,443 Victor Valley CollegeCA872 2,197 7,232 10,301 Moreno Valley CollegeCA253288 7,364 7,905 Los Angeles Mission CollegeCA282645 7,487 8,414 Golden West CollegeCA 1,075 2,803 7,499 11,377 Merced CollegeCA221 1,111 7,632 8,964 College of the SequoiasCA412 1,576 7,895 9,883 Monterey Peninsula CollegeCA261 1,003 8,086 9,350 San Bernardino Valley CollegeCA746 1,989 8,097 10,832 Foothill CollegeCA 2,654 2,641 8,247 13,542 Citrus CollegeCA490 1,507 8,280 10,277 Irvine Valley CollegeCA 1,027 1,968 8,473 11,468 Chabot CollegeCA 1,223 2,177 8,686 12,086 MiraCosta CollegeCA 1,845 3,262 8,867 13,974 Laney CollegeCA524604 8,879 10,007 Santiago Canyon CollegeCA599 1,084 8,978 10,661 Mt. San Jacinto Community College DistrictCA 1,249 2,921 8,995 13,165 Cabrillo CollegeCA507 2,550 9,061 12,118 Butte CollegeCA347 1,205 9,613 11,165 Cosumnes River CollegeCA 1,403 1,778 9,896 13,077 Antelope Valley CollegeCA403 1,481 9,935 11,819 San Joaquin Delta CollegeCA 1,683 3,194 9,976 14,853 Ventura CollegeCA505 1,178 10,093 11,776 San Diego City CollegeCA 2,017 1,910 10,327 14,254 Reedley CollegeCA607 1,245 10,426 12,278 College of the CanyonsCA802 2,519 10,554 13,875 Cypress CollegeCA 1,041 2,562 10,641 14,244 Modesto Junior CollegeCA 1,191 3,594 10,945 15,730 Moorpark CollegeCA873 1,891 11,018 13,782 Los Angeles Trade Technical CollegeCA282545 11,243 12,070 Santa Barbara City CollegeCA 1,956 2,590 11,399 15,945 Rio Hondo CollegeCA 1,252 2,532 12,047 15,831 Riverside City CollegeCA 1,349 1,736 12,297 15,382 Glendale Community CollegeCA165 1,560 12,751 14,476 Sierra CollegeCA 1,190 2,521 13,202 16,913 Bakersfield CollegeCA700 1,809 13,215 15,724 Grossmont CollegeCA929 2,036 13,318 16,283 Los Angeles Valley CollegeCA859 1,472 13,839 16,170 Los Angeles City CollegeCA 2,220 1,352 13,928 17,500 Chaffey CollegeCA390 1,451 13,973 15,814 Saddleback CollegeCA 2,510 3,482 14,099 20,091 Southwestern CollegeCA342983 14,226 15,551 Diablo Valley CollegeCA 1,162 2,898 14,429 18,489 Fullerton CollegeCA758 2,257 14,955 17,970 Cerritos CollegeCA 1,182 2,660 15,617 19,459 Palomar CollegeCA 1,229 5,561 15,850 22,640 Orange Coast CollegeCA632 3,005 16,205 19,842 Los Angeles Pierce CollegeCA251612 16,765 17,628 Santa Rosa Junior CollegeCA 1,153 2,468 16,814 20,435 San Diego Mesa CollegeCA 2,229 2,403 16,946 21,578 De Anza CollegeCA 1,238 2,165 17,744 21,147 Pasadena City CollegeCA425 2,834 18,069 21,328 Fresno City CollegeCA528862 18,074 19,464 Sacramento City CollegeCA 1,466 2,882 18,162 22,510 El Camino Community College DistrictCA476 1,139 19,826 21,441 Long Beach City CollegeCA657 2,730 20,090 23,477 American River CollegeCA 2,943 4,211 21,451 28,605 Santa Monica CollegeCA 2,218 4,086 21,658 27,962 Mt. San Antonio CollegeCA385 2,182 22,887 25,454 City College of San FranciscoCA811 2,530 24,339 27,680 Santa Ana CollegeCA 1,094 2,275 26,838 30,207 East Los Angeles CollegeCA868 2,330 30,817 34,015 Colorado Northwestern Community CollegeCO9074732896 Lamar Community CollegeCO35101767903 Morgan Community CollegeCO125144796 1,065 Trinidad State Junior CollegeCO133141 1,084 1,358 Otero Junior CollegeCO4779 1,135 1,261 Northeastern Junior CollegeCO6481 1,173 1,318 Aims Community CollegeCO312804 3,040 4,156 Community College of AuroraCO962 1,059 4,164 6,185 Pueblo Community CollegeCO639810 4,166 5,615 Arapahoe Community CollegeCO 3,661 1,579 4,684 9,924 Red Rocks Community CollegeCO 1,364 1,480 5,213 8,057 Community College of DenverCO 1,283 1,285 6,365 8,933 Pikes Peak Community CollegeCO 2,117 2,619 9,086 13,822 Front Range Community CollegeCO 3,377 3,321 11,808 18,506 Stratford School of Aviation Maintenance TechniciansCT--3838 Howell Cheney Technical High SchoolCT--5353 Northwestern Connecticut Community CollegeCT54195977 1,226 Asnuntuck Community CollegeCT76230 1,038 1,344 Quinebaug Valley Community CollegeCT75265 1,555 1,895 Middlesex Community CollegeCT147457 1,731 2,335 Tunxis Community CollegeCT245746 2,936 3,927 Capital Community CollegeCT160746 2,970 3,876 Three Rivers Community CollegeCT156644 3,816 4,616 Norwalk Community CollegeCT111461 4,669 5,241 Housatonic Community CollegeCT144506 4,973 5,623 Naugatuck Valley Community CollegeCT142756 5,864 6,762 Gateway Community CollegeCT135699 6,111 6,945 Manchester Community CollegeCT180630 6,125 6,935 Delaware Technical Community College-TerryDE98631 2,218 2,947 Delaware Technical Community College-OwensDE93696 3,316 4,105 Delaware Technical Community College-Stanton/WilmingtonDE109767 5,780 6,656 D. A. Dorsey Educational CenterFL--8080 Walton Career Development CenterFL--9696 Bradford-Union Area Career Technical CenterFL--159159 Marchman Technical Education CenterFL--172172 Immokalee Technical CenterFL--213213 Charlotte Technical CenterFL--252252 Brewster Technical CenterFL--254254 CHOICE High School and Technical CenterFL--279279 Marion County Community Technical and Adult Education CenterFL--308308 Withlacoochee Technical InstituteFL--336336 Lorenzo Walker Institute of TechnologyFL--352352 Radford M Locklin Technical CenterFL2991371671 Washington-Holmes Technical CenterFL--383383 Traviss Career CenterFL--412412 Lake Technical CenterFL-157419576 Sheridan Technical CenterFL265420430 1,115 Tom P Haney Technical CenterFL--441441 Westside TechFL--569569 North Florida Community CollegeFL102300580982 George Stone Technical CenterFL--598598 Fort Myers Institute of TechnologyFL--607607 Orlando TechFL--636636 Florida Keys Community CollegeFL84247664995 Pinellas Technical Education Center-St PetersburgFL-266724990 George T Baker Aviation SchoolFL--725725 Ridge Career CenterFL--738738 William T. McFatter Technical CenterFL3-783786 Lindsey Hopkins Technical Education CenterFL--809809 Technical Education Center-OsceolaFL--815815 Atlantic Technical CenterFL--875875 D G Erwin Technical CenterFL--936936 Pinellas Technical Education Center-ClearwaterFL-85 1,136 1,221 Mid Florida TechFL-118 1,347 1,465 Manatee Technical InstituteFL-- 1,361 1,361 Miami Lakes Educational CenterFL-- 1,426 1,426 Robert Morgan Educational CenterFL-- 1,444 1,444 Pasco-Hernando Community CollegeFL660 2,186 5,462 8,308 Brevard Community CollegeFL 1,675 2,595 8,724 12,994 Tallahassee Community CollegeFL 1,091 1,764 10,097 12,952 Hillsborough Community CollegeFL 1,493 4,138 19,670 25,301 Grady Health System Professional SchoolsGA--8282 Waycross CollegeGA--632632 Southwest Georgia Technical CollegeGA119446816 1,381 Oconee Fall Line Technical CollegeGA139493822 1,454 Altamaha Technical CollegeGA105329851 1,285 Okefenokee Technical CollegeGA51244945 1,240 Moultrie Technical CollegeGA238315979 1,532 Southeastern Technical CollegeGA136406984 1,526 Ogeechee Technical CollegeGA221704 1,225 2,150 South Georgia Technical CollegeGA128380 1,236 1,744 Albany Technical CollegeGA996 1,396 1,435 3,827 North Georgia Technical CollegeGA165647 1,479 2,291 Bainbridge CollegeGA332967 1,549 2,848 Lanier Technical CollegeGA658894 1,599 3,151 Georgia Piedmont Technical CollegeGA665 1,431 1,788 3,884 Middle Georgia Technical CollegeGA589889 1,946 3,424 Wiregrass Georgia Technical CollegeGA581866 2,389 3,836 Central Georgia Technical CollegeGA877 1,141 2,390 4,408 Columbus Technical CollegeGA267 1,212 2,657 4,136 Darton State CollegeGA 1,607 1,895 2,724 6,226 Savannah Technical CollegeGA405 1,408 2,734 4,547 Georgia Northwestern Technical CollegeGA845 1,638 3,020 5,503 Atlanta Technical CollegeGA300 1,166 3,111 4,577 Southern Crescent Technical CollegeGA743 1,334 3,252 5,329 Augusta Technical CollegeGA174829 3,255 4,258 Athens Technical CollegeGA248670 3,561 4,479 Gwinnett Technical CollegeGA685 1,976 3,817 6,478 West Georgia Technical CollegeGA663 1,125 4,303 6,091 Georgia Highlands CollegeGA151732 4,459 5,342 Georgia Military CollegeGA525653 6,225 7,403 Chattahoochee Technical CollegeGA 1,291 2,888 7,029 11,208 Georgia Perimeter CollegeGA 3,660 4,851 13,193 21,704 Kauai Community CollegeHI22120 1,106 1,248 Windward Community CollegeHI148349 1,438 1,935 Hawaii Community CollegeHI352737 2,082 3,171 Honolulu Community CollegeHI168414 2,930 3,512 Leeward Community CollegeHI569 1,452 3,976 5,997 Kapiolani Community CollegeHI456 1,411 4,439 6,306 Marshalltown Community CollegeIA204699507 1,410 Ellsworth Community CollegeIA72293526891 Northwest Iowa Community CollegeIA124235533892 Southwestern Community CollegeIA172301542 1,015 North Iowa Area Community CollegeIA320 1,494 1,377 3,191 Southeastern Community CollegeIA326407 1,380 2,113 Iowa Lakes Community CollegeIA247405 1,408 2,060 Indian Hills Community CollegeIA542 1,021 1,585 3,148 Northeast Iowa Community College-CalmarIA441828 1,899 3,168 Western Iowa Tech Community CollegeIA781 1,048 1,916 3,745 Iowa Central Community CollegeIA254562 3,088 3,904 Iowa Western Community CollegeIA709 1,417 3,367 5,493 Hawkeye Community CollegeIA392783 3,371 4,546 Eastern Iowa Community College DistrictIA965 1,083 4,232 6,280 Kirkwood Community CollegeIA183 3,083 9,352 12,618 Des Moines Area Community CollegeIA 1,889 2,684 11,211 15,784 Eastern Idaho Technical CollegeID--442442 North Idaho CollegeID631 2,886 2,132 5,649 College of Southern IdahoID840 1,983 2,895 5,718 College of Western IdahoID882 2,549 4,810 8,241 Illinois Eastern Community Colleges-Lincoln Trail CollegeIL31211318560 Illinois Eastern Community Colleges-Frontier Community CollIL1292438542 Southeastern Illinois CollegeIL115351623 1,089 Illinois Eastern Community Colleges-Olney Central CollegeIL90151678919 Spoon River CollegeIL90392876 1,358 Illinois Eastern Community Colleges-Wabash Valley CollegeIL843 1,098 1,149 John Wood Community CollegeIL106589 1,191 1,886 Highland Community CollegeIL81425 1,227 1,733 Danville Area Community CollegeIL412477 1,274 2,163 Carl Sandburg CollegeIL116404 1,350 1,870 Sauk Valley Community CollegeIL96482 1,388 1,966 Shawnee Community CollegeIL34196 1,422 1,652 Rend Lake CollegeIL51562 1,668 2,281 Richland Community CollegeIL149537 1,940 2,626 Kaskaskia CollegeIL102847 2,374 3,323 Kishwaukee CollegeIL255 1,006 2,497 3,758 Illinois Valley Community CollegeIL140545 2,533 3,218 Kankakee Community CollegeIL104637 2,550 3,291 Lake Land CollegeIL424 1,160 2,651 4,235 Morton CollegeIL39210 2,669 2,918 South Suburban CollegeIL222967 2,920 4,109 City Colleges of Chicago-Olive-Harvey CollegeIL133274 3,196 3,603 McHenry County CollegeIL198683 3,352 4,233 Black Hawk CollegeIL329913 3,477 4,719 Heartland Community CollegeIL178738 4,026 4,942 City Colleges of Chicago-Kennedy-King CollegeIL114366 4,031 4,511 Lewis and Clark Community CollegeIL235545 4,070 4,850 Lincoln Land Community CollegeIL509 1,010 4,199 5,718 City Colleges of Chicago-Malcolm X CollegeIL117467 4,256 4,840 City Colleges of Chicago-Richard J Daley CollegeIL181435 4,256 4,872 Prairie State CollegeIL159602 4,294 5,055 John A Logan CollegeIL196958 4,518 5,672 City Colleges of Chicago-Harry S Truman CollegeIL179512 5,737 6,428 Parkland CollegeIL580 1,146 5,934 7,660 Waubonsee Community CollegeIL794 1,587 6,022 8,403 Illinois Central CollegeIL685 1,689 6,085 8,459 Rock Valley CollegeIL168667 6,614 7,449 Elgin Community CollegeIL386 1,208 7,027 8,621 City Colleges of Chicago-Harold Washington CollegeIL310938 7,282 8,530 Triton CollegeIL516 1,433 8,310 10,259 City Colleges of Chicago-Wilbur Wright CollegeIL236561 8,341 9,138 Southwestern Illinois CollegeIL436 1,514 8,452 10,402 Oakton Community CollegeIL710 1,342 8,454 10,506 Harper CollegeIL642 1,556 8,715 10,913 Moraine Valley Community CollegeIL326 1,237 9,339 10,902 College of Lake CountyIL717 1,587 10,496 12,800 Joliet Junior CollegeIL-- 13,158 13,158 College of DuPageIL 1,737 2,785 14,874 19,396 Good Samaritan Hospital School of Radiologic TechnologyIN--1919 Ivy Tech Community CollegeIN 13,787 26,673 50,652 91,112 Salina Area Technical CollegeKS--309309 Northwest Kansas Technical CollegeKS1556313384 North Central Kansas Technical CollegeKS-39441480 Independence Community CollegeKS67171443681 Flint Hills Technical CollegeKS41129464634 Colby Community CollegeKS70252485807 Pratt Community CollegeKS100181541822 Manhattan Area Technical CollegeKS14126615755 Neosho County Community CollegeKS214653726 1,593 Dodge City Community CollegeKS86310748 1,144 Labette Community CollegeKS112486761 1,359 Cloud County Community CollegeKS108203793 1,104 Coffeyville Community CollegeKS92219900 1,211 Fort Scott Community CollegeKS121261 1,103 1,485 Allen County Community CollegeKS 1,058 719 1,175 2,952 Garden City Community CollegeKS80137 1,184 1,401 Highland Community CollegeKS441243 1,351 2,035 Cowley County Community CollegeKS 1,411 914 1,355 3,680 Seward County Community College and Area Technical SchoolKS72113 1,441 1,626 Barton County Community CollegeKS913172 1,724 2,809 Hutchinson Community CollegeKS 1,212 1,167 2,011 4,390 Kansas City Kansas Community CollegeKS974 1,694 3,398 6,066 Butler Community CollegeKS 1,198 1,762 4,415 7,375 Johnson County Community CollegeKS 1,275 3,056 8,892 13,223 Henderson Community CollegeKY5908805 1,403 Hazard Community and Technical CollegeKY 1,573 8991 2,572 Maysville Community and Technical CollegeKY 1,439 10 1,399 2,848 Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical CollegeKY 1,127 32 1,458 2,617 Madisonville Community CollegeKY 1,291 8 1,485 2,784 Ashland Community and Technical CollegeKY 1,012 4 1,564 2,580 Bowling Green Technical CollegeKY 1,338 16 1,670 3,024 Big Sandy Community and Technical CollegeKY 1,467 12 1,712 3,191 Owensboro Community and Technical CollegeKY 1,414 13 2,029 3,456 Hopkinsville Community CollegeKY 1,240 12 2,211 3,463 Gateway Community and Technical CollegeKY 1,396 33 2,367 3,796 Somerset Community CollegeKY 3,885 10 2,430 6,325 West Kentucky Community and Technical CollegeKY 2,105 22 2,517 4,644 Elizabethtown Community and Technical CollegeKY 3,063 21 3,140 6,224 Bluegrass Community and Technical CollegeKY 5,064 237 6,295 11,596 Jefferson Community and Technical CollegeKY 4,362 121 7,874 12,357 South Central Louisiana Technical College-Young Memorial CampusLA-277803 1,080 Northeast Louisiana Technical CollegeLA--878878 Central Louisiana Technical Community CollegeLA-- 1,059 1,059 Nunez Community CollegeLA63321 1,144 1,528 Northwest Louisiana Technical CollegeLA-- 1,299 1,299 River Parishes Community CollegeLA85271 1,430 1,786 L E Fletcher Technical Community CollegeLA23161 1,450 1,634 Capital Area Technical College-Baton Rouge CampusLA8100 1,473 1,581 Northshore Technical Community CollegeLA42262 1,481 1,785 Louisiana Delta Community College-Monroe CampusLA18324 1,657 1,999 Sowela Technical Community CollegeLA78491 1,750 2,319 Louisiana State University EuniceLA208587 1,870 2,665 Acadiana Technical College-Lafayette CampusLA-- 2,493 2,493 Southern University at ShreveportLA5950 2,542 2,651 South Louisiana Community CollegeLA20201 2,943 3,164 Bossier Parish Community CollegeLA909 1,503 4,223 6,635 Baton Rouge Community CollegeLA330 1,328 7,060 8,718 Delgado Community CollegeLA100200 16,957 17,257 Berkshire Community CollegeMA40310 1,770 2,120 Greenfield Community CollegeMA88335 1,852 2,275 Roxbury Community CollegeMA19112 2,380 2,511 Cape Cod Community CollegeMA192634 2,776 3,602 Mount Wachusett Community CollegeMA381774 3,128 4,283 Quincy CollegeMA48345 3,458 3,851 Massachusetts Bay Community CollegeMA225584 3,814 4,623 Holyoke Community CollegeMA511 1,439 4,859 6,809 Northern Essex Community CollegeMA472 1,443 4,865 6,780 Bristol Community CollegeMA537 2,100 5,281 7,918 Springfield Technical Community CollegeMA309792 5,436 6,537 Quinsigamond Community CollegeMA338 1,817 5,726 7,881 Massasoit Community CollegeMA182649 5,811 6,642 North Shore Community CollegeMA338879 6,016 7,233 Middlesex Community CollegeMA383 1,718 6,748 8,849 Bunker Hill Community CollegeMA428 1,500 9,961 11,889 Garrett CollegeMD6138526670 Chesapeake CollegeMD198647 1,493 2,338 Cecil CollegeMD218738 1,585 2,541 Allegany College of MarylandMD155768 2,077 3,000 Wor-Wic Community CollegeMD73359 2,986 3,418 Carroll Community CollegeMD285548 3,092 3,925 Baltimore City Community CollegeMD276 1,466 3,164 4,906 Hagerstown Community CollegeMD268741 3,202 4,211 Frederick Community CollegeMD440816 4,227 5,483 Harford Community CollegeMD427 1,208 4,504 6,139 College of Southern MarylandMD 1,126 2,249 5,214 8,589 Howard Community CollegeMD112479 8,651 9,242 Anne Arundel Community CollegeMD 2,296 3,359 9,492 15,147 Prince George's Community CollegeMD 1,184 2,177 9,514 12,875 Montgomery CollegeMD227888 18,582 19,697 The Community College of Baltimore CountyMD 1,508 3,251 18,770 23,529 Washington County Community CollegeME1878273369 Northern Maine Community CollegeME--804804 York County Community CollegeME124319838 1,281 Kennebec Valley Community CollegeME2785983 1,770 Eastern Maine Community CollegeME35281 1,684 2,000 Central Maine Community CollegeME-76 2,409 2,485 Southern Maine Community CollegeME389 1,056 4,627 6,072 Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community CollegeMI--8181 Saginaw Chippewa Tribal CollegeMI--105105 Bay Mills Community CollegeMI157112263532 Glen Oaks Community CollegeMI43227540810 Gogebic Community CollegeMI62262636960 West Shore Community CollegeMI105224818 1,147 Kirtland Community CollegeMI251365 1,031 1,647 Alpena Community CollegeMI61239 1,313 1,613 Bay de Noc Community CollegeMI126810 1,316 2,252 Montcalm Community CollegeMI75269 1,325 1,669 North Central Michigan CollegeMI304422 1,653 2,379 Monroe County Community CollegeMI104350 2,052 2,506 Southwestern Michigan CollegeMI265 2,241 2,308 Muskegon Community CollegeMI-758 2,342 3,100 Mid Michigan Community CollegeMI262677 2,370 3,309 Lake Michigan CollegeMI121361 3,067 3,549 St Clair County Community CollegeMI236437 3,206 3,879 Northwestern Michigan CollegeMI282827 3,289 4,398 Kellogg Community CollegeMI451662 3,911 5,024 Jackson Community CollegeMI696 1,054 4,055 5,805 Schoolcraft CollegeMI 2,372 1,739 5,691 9,802 Delta CollegeMI320 2,520 6,069 8,909 Mott Community CollegeMI240473 7,550 8,263 Washtenaw Community CollegeMI463 1,126 9,122 10,711 Kalamazoo Valley Community CollegeMI241884 9,193 10,318 Wayne County Community College DistrictMI 1,512 1,986 11,189 14,687 Macomb Community CollegeMI 1,007 1,558 11,491 14,056 Henry Ford Community CollegeMI 1,031 1,776 13,183 15,990 Grand Rapids Community CollegeMI860 2,604 13,215 16,679 Oakland Community CollegeMI427 1,048 14,279 15,754 Lansing Community CollegeMI 1,391 330 17,013 18,734 Rainy River Community CollegeMN554194253 Leech Lake Tribal CollegeMN-14308322 Northwest Technical CollegeMN256224413893 Vermilion Community CollegeMN--572572 Mesabi Range Community and Technical CollegeMN67331600998 Pine Technical CollegeMN32139619790 Hibbing Community College-A Technical and Community CollegeMN137305776 1,218 Fond du Lac Tribal and Community CollegeMN34240795 1,069 Minnesota West Community and Technical CollegeMN675786849 2,310 Itasca Community CollegeMN16137937 1,090 Minnesota State College-Southeast TechnicalMN342610 1,109 2,061 Anoka Technical CollegeMN85601 1,378 2,064 Alexandria Technical & Community CollegeMN203288 1,388 1,879 Central Lakes College-BrainerdMN434895 1,412 2,741 Riverland Community CollegeMN346924 1,505 2,775 Dakota County Technical CollegeMN324886 1,596 2,806 Lake Superior CollegeMN769 1,261 1,948 3,978 Northland Community and Technical CollegeMN336596 2,149 3,081 South Central CollegeMN212987 2,252 3,451 Ridgewater CollegeMN229906 2,421 3,556 Inver Hills Community CollegeMN642 1,340 3,141 5,123 Rochester Community and Technical CollegeMN838 1,432 3,193 5,463 St. Cloud Technical and Community CollegeMN287819 3,220 4,326 Minnesota State Community and Technical CollegeMN 1,048 793 3,382 5,223 North Hennepin Community CollegeMN906 1,695 4,263 6,864 Saint Paul College-A Community and Technical CollegeMN374 1,433 4,352 6,159 Anoka-Ramsey Community CollegeMN909 1,700 4,492 7,101 Hennepin Technical CollegeMN198 1,057 4,818 6,073 Normandale Community CollegeMN668 1,619 6,037 8,324 Minneapolis Community and Technical CollegeMN596 1,636 7,189 9,421 Century CollegeMN728 1,760 7,464 9,952 Nichols Career CenterMO--7171 Hillyard Technical CenterMO--158158 Rolla Technical InstituteMO--166166 Cape Girardeau Career and Technology CenterMO--266266 North Central Missouri CollegeMO39869320 1,228 Missouri State University-West PlainsMO157492984 1,633 Linn State Technical CollegeMO6141 1,006 1,153 Three Rivers Community CollegeMO383 1,780 1,210 3,373 Moberly Area Community CollegeMO801 2,290 1,621 4,712 State Fair Community CollegeMO930 1,575 1,968 4,473 Mineral Area CollegeMO175849 2,256 3,280 East Central CollegeMO69584 2,512 3,165 Crowder CollegeMO273 1,219 2,741 4,233 Jefferson CollegeMO432 1,259 3,562 5,253 St Charles Community CollegeMO288993 5,715 6,996 Ozarks Technical Community CollegeMO 1,990 2,503 9,003 13,496 Metropolitan Community College-Kansas CityMO 1,595 3,452 12,943 17,990 Saint Louis Community CollegeMO649 4,310 18,915 23,874 Southwest Mississippi Community CollegeMS208563 1,212 1,983 East Central Community CollegeMS330472 1,538 2,340 Copiah-Lincoln Community CollegeMS382 1,074 1,690 3,146 Coahoma Community CollegeMS144307 1,754 2,205 Northeast Mississippi Community CollegeMS363737 2,205 3,305 East Mississippi Community CollegeMS 1,048 1,430 2,220 4,698 Mississippi Delta Community CollegeMS206323 2,257 2,786 Meridian Community CollegeMS403 1,131 2,604 4,138 Itawamba Community CollegeMS 1,319 1,907 2,776 6,002 Jones County Junior CollegeMS166 1,085 3,008 4,259 Pearl River Community CollegeMS418907 3,981 5,306 Holmes Community CollegeMS 1,152 1,072 4,092 6,316 Northwest Mississippi Community CollegeMS641 1,512 6,067 8,220 Mississippi Gulf Coast Community CollegeMS 1,108 2,658 6,326 10,092 Hinds Community CollegeMS 1,006 1,411 8,415 10,832 Chief Dull Knife CollegeMT--169169 Aaniiih Nakoda CollegeMT--184184 Stone Child CollegeMT--191191 Dawson Community CollegeMT5412200266 Miles Community CollegeMT5299263414 Little Big Horn CollegeMT--315315 Fort Peck Community CollegeMT--372372 Highlands College of Montana TechMT20174398592 Great Falls College Montana State UniversityMT320652673 1,645 Helena College University of MontanaMT58404787 1,249 Flathead Valley Community CollegeMT125431 1,413 1,969 Southwestern Community CollegeNC745 1,048 71 1,864 Carolinas College of Health SciencesNC-330105435 Pamlico Community CollegeNC134147123404 Mercy School of NursingNC--141141 Tri-County Community CollegeNC261549194 1,004 Martin Community CollegeNC40271237548 Stanly Community CollegeNC 1,822 254250 2,326 Bladen Community CollegeNC284638329 1,251 Beaufort County Community CollegeNC132 1,136 434 1,702 Roanoke-Chowan Community CollegeNC56360454870 Montgomery Community CollegeNC55245455755 Brunswick Community CollegeNC329304485 1,118 South Piedmont Community CollegeNC468 1,126 571 2,165 Lenoir Community CollegeNC 1,386 632595 2,613 Wilson Community CollegeNC263598643 1,504 Southeastern Community CollegeNC200562670 1,432 James Sprunt Community CollegeNC89538678 1,305 Piedmont Community CollegeNC226597694 1,517 McDowell Technical Community CollegeNC19279699997 Carteret Community CollegeNC227549753 1,529 Halifax Community CollegeNC98506783 1,387 Catawba Valley Community CollegeNC 1,360 1,836 786 3,982 Haywood Community CollegeNC613434819 1,866 College of the AlbemarleNC375927823 2,125 Richmond Community CollegeNC169929965 2,063 Sampson Community CollegeNC47305971 1,323 Craven Community CollegeNC941 1,070 1,084 3,095 Mayland Community CollegeNC39208 1,091 1,338 Caldwell Community College and Technical InstituteNC640 2,005 1,161 3,806 Blue Ridge Community CollegeNC227618 1,162 2,007 Western Piedmont Community CollegeNC217830 1,227 2,274 Isothermal Community CollegeNC219876 1,337 2,432 Randolph Community CollegeNC289 1,074 1,362 2,725 Johnston Community CollegeNC442 1,759 1,402 3,603 Nash Community CollegeNC249797 1,458 2,504 Surry Community CollegeNC533856 1,464 2,853 Wilkes Community CollegeNC186744 1,527 2,457 Rockingham Community CollegeNC54269 1,551 1,874 Edgecombe Community CollegeNC581776 1,571 2,928 Mitchell Community CollegeNC77 1,065 1,643 2,785 Wayne Community CollegeNC445 1,129 1,678 3,252 Cleveland Community CollegeNC695721 1,800 3,216 Central Carolina Community CollegeNC661 1,308 1,881 3,850 Sandhills Community CollegeNC401 1,597 1,913 3,911 Davidson County Community CollegeNC490 1,207 1,924 3,621 Robeson Community CollegeNC130533 2,088 2,751 Vance-Granville Community CollegeNC573 1,231 2,118 3,922 Pitt Community CollegeNC 1,095 4,462 2,184 7,741 Alamance Community CollegeNC364 1,133 2,646 4,143 Coastal Carolina Community CollegeNC529 1,060 2,725 4,314 Gaston CollegeNC580 2,267 2,756 5,603 Rowan-Cabarrus Community CollegeNC816 2,841 2,862 6,519 Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community CollegeNC521 2,539 3,216 6,276 Durham Technical Community CollegeNC369 1,054 3,404 4,827 Fayetteville Technical Community CollegeNC 2,489 3,680 4,206 10,375 Forsyth Technical Community CollegeNC 1,572 2,529 4,774 8,875 Cape Fear Community CollegeNC810 1,037 6,894 8,741 Central Piedmont Community CollegeNC 2,658 7,465 7,898 18,021 Wake Technical Community CollegeNC 3,470 7,782 8,335 19,587 Guilford Technical Community CollegeNC 1,298 3,731 9,509 14,538 Williston State CollegeND149199177525 Dakota College at BottineauND126140178444 Cankdeska Cikana Community CollegeND--227227 Lake Region State CollegeND340131228699 North Dakota State College of ScienceND563389 1,272 2,224 Nebraska Indian Community CollegeNE-150-150 Nebraska College of Technical AgricultureNE--247247 Mid-Plains Community CollegeNE303680493 1,476 Western Nebraska Community CollegeNE206446 1,062 1,714 Northeast Community CollegeNE347919 1,664 2,930 Central Community CollegeNE689 1,115 2,809 4,613 Southeast Community College AreaNE 1,170 1,491 5,316 7,977 Metropolitan Community College AreaNE 1,266 1,088 5,834 8,188 White Mountains Community CollegeNH33115559707 River Valley Community CollegeNH86256594936 Lakes Region Community CollegeNH22172804998 Great Bay Community CollegeNH59401 1,341 1,801 Manchester Community CollegeNH163465 1,672 2,300 Nashua Community CollegeNH29102 1,876 2,007 NHTI-Concord's Community CollegeNH136455 3,275 3,866 Salem Community CollegeNJ17198939 1,154 Warren County Community CollegeNJ70369 1,364 1,803 Sussex County Community CollegeNJ52999 1,919 2,970 Cumberland County CollegeNJ-780 3,043 3,823 Atlantic Cape Community CollegeNJ582 1,368 4,956 6,906 Gloucester County CollegeNJ216 1,108 5,067 6,391 Raritan Valley Community CollegeNJ370 1,087 5,686 7,143 County College of MorrisNJ243 1,565 5,825 7,633 Burlington County CollegeNJ864 1,978 6,394 9,236 Mercer County Community CollegeNJ344 1,003 6,774 8,121 Ocean County CollegeNJ600 1,167 6,806 8,573 Passaic County Community CollegeNJ340 1,045 7,997 9,382 Hudson County Community CollegeNJ106922 8,028 9,056 Union County CollegeNJ289 1,733 9,232 11,254 Camden County CollegeNJ584 1,406 10,290 12,280 Essex County CollegeNJ-539 10,547 11,086 Middlesex County CollegeNJ95751 10,776 11,622 Brookdale Community CollegeNJ329 1,188 11,318 12,835 Bergen Community CollegeNJ479 2,457 12,699 15,635 University of New Mexico-Los Alamos CampusNM23899169506 Eastern New Mexico University-Ruidoso CampusNM347191173711 New Mexico State University-GrantsNM88253206547 Mesalands Community CollegeNM2083395498 Southwestern Indian Polytechnic InstituteNM289441478 New Mexico State University-CarlsbadNM117270462849 New Mexico Military InstituteNM--490490 Luna Community CollegeNM102261549912 New Mexico State University-AlamogordoNM332671578 1,581 New Mexico Junior CollegeNM141474798 1,413 Eastern New Mexico University-Roswell CampusNM478 1,049 915 2,442 University of New Mexico-Taos CampusNM2264933 1,019 Clovis Community CollegeNM382543 1,137 2,062 University of New Mexico-Valencia County CampusNM146320 1,464 1,930 University of New Mexico-Gallup CampusNM46181 2,170 2,397 Santa Fe Community CollegeNM389834 2,673 3,896 San Juan CollegeNM 1,450 1,033 3,805 6,288 New Mexico State University-Dona AnaNM868 1,931 4,226 7,025 Central New Mexico Community CollegeNM 2,128 4,551 18,515 25,194 Truckee Meadows Community CollegeNV 1,207 2,539 6,141 9,887 Western Suffolk BOCESNY--344344 North Country Community CollegeNY-438371809 Clinton Community CollegeNY209286 1,026 1,521 Sullivan County Community CollegeNY35180 1,045 1,260 Herkimer County Community CollegeNY703534 1,411 2,648 Columbia-Greene Community CollegeNY19148 1,429 1,596 Ulster County Community CollegeNY89560 1,583 2,232 Cayuga County Community CollegeNY392768 1,828 2,988 Fulton-Montgomery Community CollegeNY52219 1,969 2,240 Jefferson Community CollegeNY270624 2,230 3,124 Tompkins Cortland Community CollegeNY231717 2,271 3,219 Corning Community CollegeNY104634 2,482 3,220 Adirondack Community CollegeNY112500 2,714 3,326 Jamestown Community CollegeNY151482 2,814 3,447 Schenectady County Community CollegeNY153848 2,919 3,920 Genesee Community CollegeNY270 1,117 2,934 4,321 Finger Lakes Community CollegeNY391838 3,411 4,640 Broome Community CollegeNY272 1,298 3,905 5,475 Niagara County Community CollegeNY213980 4,142 5,335 Mohawk Valley Community CollegeNY285 1,206 4,358 5,849 CUNY Hostos Community CollegeNY-977 4,815 5,792 Orange County Community CollegeNY3463 5,129 5,595 Rockland Community CollegeNY91 1,190 5,553 6,834 Hudson Valley Community CollegeNY945 2,312 6,097 9,354 Onondaga Community CollegeNY538 1,546 6,800 8,884 Dutchess Community CollegeNY83407 7,081 7,571 CUNY Borough of Manhattan Community CollegeNY367 15,980 7,617 23,964 Erie Community CollegeNY472 2,301 8,911 11,684 CUNY Bronx Community CollegeNY62618 9,918 10,598 SUNY Westchester Community CollegeNY248 1,391 10,651 12,290 CUNY Queensborough Community CollegeNY253 1,280 12,559 14,092 CUNY Kingsborough Community CollegeNY26 2,065 12,647 14,738 Monroe Community CollegeNY833 2,231 12,736 15,800 CUNY LaGuardia Community CollegeNY18 1,796 14,735 16,549 Nassau Community CollegeNY332 2,033 19,039 21,404 Suffolk County Community CollegeNY394 2,261 20,113 22,768 Tri-County Adult Career CenterOH--138138 Toledo Public Schools Adult & Continuing EducationOH--156156 Warren County Career CenterOH--243243 Career and Technology Education Centers of Licking CountyOH--248248 Washington County Career Center-Adult Technical TrainingOH4-274278 Great Oaks Institute of Technology and Career DevelopmentOH--310310 Knox County Career CenterOH--343343 EHOVE Career CenterOH--357357 O C Collins Career CenterOH--393393 Ohio State University Agricultural Technical InstituteOH-14593607 Washington State Community CollegeOH67348961 1,376 Bowling Green State University-FirelandsOH118443 1,225 1,786 Belmont CollegeOH15233 1,288 1,536 Zane State CollegeOH147848 1,330 2,325 Eastern Gateway Community CollegeOH157532 1,332 2,021 Terra State Community CollegeOH211825 1,389 2,425 University of Akron Wayne CollegeOH523 1,511 1,539 Edison State Community CollegeOH165413 1,780 2,358 Southern State Community CollegeOH72385 1,780 2,237 North Central State CollegeOH63509 1,912 2,484 Central Ohio Technical CollegeOH452 1,138 1,920 3,510 Northwest State Community CollegeOH226662 1,921 2,809 Marion Technical CollegeOH136477 2,106 2,719 Clark State Community CollegeOH771 1,111 2,568 4,450 James A Rhodes State CollegeOH57552 2,736 3,345 Hocking CollegeOH- 1,000 3,339 4,339 Lakeland Community CollegeOH796 1,472 4,703 6,971 Lorain County Community CollegeOH 2,254 3,803 5,039 11,096 Cincinnati State Technical and Community CollegeOH570 2,229 6,654 9,453 Columbus State Community CollegeOH 2,624 3,769 7,644 14,037 Cuyahoga Community College DistrictOH 1,935 4,330 8,428 14,693 Stark State CollegeOH 1,042 2,396 9,509 12,947 Owens Community CollegeOH 1,858 2,917 10,686 15,461 Sinclair Community CollegeOH 2,390 3,099 12,193 17,682 Kiamichi Technology Center-StiglerOK--4747 Southwest Technology CenterOK--5858 Caddo Kiowa Technology CenterOK--197197 Indian Capital Technology Center-TahlequahOK--223223 Kiamichi Technology Center-DurantOK--281281 Great Plains Technology CenterOK--287287 Autry Technology CenterOK--323323 Meridian Technology CenterOK--329329 Moore Norman Technology CenterOK--526526 Tulsa Technology Center-Riverside CampusOK--551551 Western Oklahoma State CollegeOK412575592 1,579 Murray State CollegeOK241994626 1,861 Indian Capital Technology Center-MuskogeeOK--720720 Eastern Oklahoma State CollegeOK88693815 1,596 Redlands Community CollegeOK403541823 1,767 Gordon Cooper Technology CenterOK10-867877 Seminole State CollegeOK139594993 1,726 Metro Technology CentersOK-- 1,252 1,252 Northeastern Oklahoma A&M CollegeOK211765 1,308 2,284 Connors State CollegeOK33512 1,341 1,886 Carl Albert State CollegeOK374645 1,371 2,390 Northern Oklahoma CollegeOK451 1,375 2,146 3,972 Rose State CollegeOK956 1,683 4,520 7,159 Oklahoma City Community CollegeOK 1,735 3,050 8,416 13,201 Tulsa Community CollegeOK 2,256 3,448 10,114 15,818 Oregon Coast Community CollegeOR46144324514 Tillamook Bay Community CollegeOR-116350466 Southwestern Oregon Community CollegeOR- 1,326 373 1,699 Clatsop Community CollegeOR25142570737 Blue Mountain Community CollegeOR307755683 1,745 Columbia Gorge Community CollegeOR68139692899 Klamath Community CollegeOR--956956 Umpqua Community CollegeOR216497 1,098 1,811 Treasure Valley Community CollegeOR230467 1,726 2,423 Rogue Community CollegeOR539 1,250 2,858 4,647 Linn-Benton Community CollegeOR444362 4,902 5,708 Clackamas Community CollegeOR746 1,284 5,600 7,630 Central Oregon Community CollegeOR188597 5,822 6,607 Lane Community CollegeOR935 2,644 6,378 9,957 Mt Hood Community CollegeOR680 1,850 6,569 9,099 Chemeketa Community CollegeOR 2,059 1,934 6,655 10,648 Portland Community CollegeOR 4,191 6,861 19,035 30,087 Somerset County Technology CenterPA--6868 University of Pittsburgh-TitusvillePA-5381386 Thaddeus Stevens College of TechnologyPA--869869 Pennsylvania Highlands Community CollegePA47236952 1,235 Community College of Beaver CountyPA-519 1,252 1,771 Butler County Community CollegePA252567 2,725 3,544 Westmoreland County Community CollegePA 1,030 1,560 3,351 5,941 Reading Area Community CollegePA174521 3,542 4,237 Lehigh Carbon Community CollegePA628998 4,567 6,193 Luzerne County Community CollegePA478878 4,928 6,284 Bucks County Community CollegePA 1,135 1,567 6,991 9,693 Northampton County Area Community CollegePA 1,329 1,668 7,552 10,549 Delaware County Community CollegePA 1,451 3,262 8,338 13,051 Montgomery County Community CollegePA 1,215 2,132 9,196 12,543 Harrisburg Area Community College-HarrisburgPA 1,267 2,644 9,787 13,698 Community College of Allegheny CountyPA 1,671 3,128 13,648 18,447 Community College of PhiladelphiaPA 1,090 2,020 14,948 18,058 Community College of Rhode IslandRI299 1,159 15,486 16,944 University of South Carolina-UnionSC-19274293 Northeastern Technical CollegeSC164503371 1,038 University of South Carolina-SumterSC-78565643 Williamsburg Technical CollegeSC--616616 University of South Carolina-SalkehatchieSC-126741867 University of South Carolina-LancasterSC-225839 1,064 Technical College of the LowcountrySC230660 1,351 2,241 Orangeburg Calhoun Technical CollegeSC158508 1,774 2,440 Aiken Technical CollegeSC198729 1,872 2,799 Denmark Technical CollegeSC-- 2,002 2,002 Piedmont Technical CollegeSC919 1,904 2,722 5,545 Central Carolina Technical CollegeSC437988 2,763 4,188 York Technical CollegeSC415 1,162 2,941 4,518 Florence-Darlington Technical CollegeSC981 1,704 3,260 5,945 Spartanburg Community CollegeSC453 1,310 3,463 5,226 Tri-County Technical CollegeSC390 1,919 3,592 5,901 Horry-Georgetown Technical CollegeSC557 1,664 4,968 7,189 Greenville Technical CollegeSC 1,303 3,762 7,633 12,698 Midlands Technical CollegeSC793 3,101 7,689 11,583 Trident Technical CollegeSC 2,161 4,305 9,325 15,791 Sisseton Wahpeton CollegeSD--175175 Western Dakota Technical InstituteSD80114745939 Mitchell Technical InstituteSD6258917 1,037 Lake Area Technical InstituteSD-148 1,334 1,482 Southeast Technical InstituteSD291721 1,552 2,564 Tennessee Technology Center at RipleyTN--134134 Tennessee Technology Center at WhitevilleTN3-151154 Tennessee Technology Center at AthensTN1-166167 Tennessee Technology Center at PulaskiTN2-168170 Tennessee Technology Center at CovingtonTN13-188201 Tennessee Technology Center at McMinnvilleTN5-190195 Tennessee Technology Center at CrumpTN10-219229 Tennessee Technology Center at JacksboroTN9-224233 Tennessee Technology Center at McKenzieTN3-227230 Tennessee Technology Center at Oneida-HuntsvilleTN10-236246 Tennessee Technology Center at HarrimanTN8-258266 Tennessee Technology Center at NewbernTN24-276300 Tennessee Technology Center at HartsvilleTN9-281290 Tennessee Technology Center at CrossvilleTN10-288298 Tennessee Technology Center at ParisTN3-296299 Tennessee Technology Center at MurfreesboroTN12-324336 Tennessee Technology Center at JacksonTN-94333427 Tennessee Technology Center at LivingstonTN4-345349 Tennessee Technology Center at HohenwaldTN--358358 Tennessee Technology Center at ShelbyvilleTN21-421442 Tennessee Technology Center at ElizabethtonTN--514514 Tennessee Technology Center at DicksonTN31-551582 Tennessee Technology Center at MorristownTN4-715719 Tennessee Technology Center at KnoxvilleTN27-740767 Tennessee Technology Center at MemphisTN9-839848 Tennessee Technology Center at NashvilleTN11-925936 Dyersburg State Community CollegeTN254754 1,715 2,723 Jackson State Community CollegeTN386 1,266 2,060 3,712 Cleveland State Community CollegeTN206790 2,063 3,059 Motlow State Community CollegeTN632822 2,476 3,930 Columbia State Community CollegeTN490 1,487 2,541 4,518 Walters State Community CollegeTN500 2,149 2,628 5,277 Roane State Community CollegeTN619 1,281 3,356 5,256 Volunteer State Community CollegeTN 1,081 1,738 3,770 6,589 Northeast State Community CollegeTN309 1,316 3,970 5,595 Nashville State Community CollegeTN996 1,904 5,332 8,232 Chattanooga State Community CollegeTN887 2,369 5,387 8,643 Pellissippi State Community CollegeTN534 1,512 6,979 9,025 Southwest Tennessee Community CollegeTN67500 11,000 11,567 Southwest Collegiate Institute for the DeafTX520118143 Texas State Technical College-MarshallTX36233152421 Texas State Technical College-West TexasTX38215342595 Frank Phillips CollegeTX29108465602 Clarendon CollegeTX85203766 1,054 Vernon CollegeTX369 1,349 851 2,569 Ranger CollegeTX376518909 1,803 Western Texas CollegeTX--973973 Lamar State College-Port ArthurTX446346 1,010 1,802 Coastal Bend CollegeTX276991 1,122 2,389 Panola CollegeTX382 1,069 1,129 2,580 Galveston CollegeTX162548 1,221 1,931 Hill CollegeTX717 1,110 1,493 3,320 Lamar State College-OrangeTX-583 1,502 2,085 Del Mar CollegeTX780 8,734 1,516 11,030 Odessa CollegeTX567 1,060 1,560 3,187 Trinity Valley Community CollegeTX872 2,583 1,608 5,063 Northeast Texas Community CollegeTX299598 1,666 2,563 Lamar Institute of TechnologyTX106534 1,922 2,562 Victoria CollegeTX825 1,474 2,155 4,454 Texarkana CollegeTX181388 2,218 2,787 Grayson CollegeTX390 1,094 2,434 3,918 Southwest Texas Junior CollegeTX316 1,335 2,484 4,135 Texas State Technical College HarlingenTX96299 2,645 3,040 Howard CollegeTX671 1,028 2,684 4,383 College of the MainlandTX262801 2,947 4,010 Alvin Community CollegeTX256749 3,107 4,112 North Central Texas CollegeTX516 1,125 3,230 4,871 Collin County Community College DistrictTX 2,358 19,009 3,286 24,653 Cisco CollegeTX45392 3,321 3,758 Texas State Technical College WacoTX-590 3,462 4,052 Angelina CollegeTX546 1,389 3,505 5,440 Palo Alto CollegeTX 1,846 1,024 3,656 6,526 Weatherford CollegeTX448 1,262 3,705 5,415 Paris Junior CollegeTX459 1,286 3,768 5,513 Temple CollegeTX426815 4,044 5,285 McLennan Community CollegeTX 1,429 2,299 4,281 8,009 St Philip's CollegeTX 2,405 1,253 4,486 8,144 Kilgore CollegeTX548964 4,719 6,231 Wharton County Junior CollegeTX491 1,078 4,730 6,299 Cedar Valley CollegeTX70670 4,749 5,525 Lee CollegeTX262977 4,802 6,041 South Plains CollegeTX566 1,621 5,346 7,533 Laredo Community CollegeTX704 1,138 5,500 7,342 Tyler Junior CollegeTX758 4,728 5,883 11,369 Navarro CollegeTX- 3,874 6,224 10,098 Amarillo CollegeTX 1,099 2,888 6,436 10,423 Mountain View CollegeTX45148 7,339 7,838 Central Texas CollegeTX 6,790 1,965 8,047 16,802 North Lake CollegeTX83191 8,290 9,212 El Centro CollegeTX61076 8,795 9,481 Northwest Vista CollegeTX 1,301 1,634 9,575 12,510 Brookhaven CollegeTX90276 9,633 10,611 Eastfield CollegeTX972135 10,880 11,987 Blinn CollegeTX893 1,868 13,382 16,143 San Antonio CollegeTX 2,560 2,899 14,414 19,873 Richland CollegeTX 1,301 191 14,662 16,154 San Jacinto Community CollegeTX 2,102 5,306 17,797 25,205 El Paso Community CollegeTX 1,461 3,278 25,972 30,711 Austin Community College DistrictTX 2,959 5,423 26,220 34,602 Tarrant County College DistrictTX 4,920 6,931 32,944 44,795 Houston Community CollegeTX 6,059 9,313 34,639 50,011 Lone Star College SystemTX 7,428 11,062 41,938 60,428 Mountainland Applied Technology CollegeUT--821821 Bridgerland Applied Technology CollegeUT--865865 Davis Applied Technology CollegeUT-- 2,269 2,269 Ogden-Weber Applied Technology CollegeUT-1 2,615 2,616 Salt Lake Community CollegeUT 2,221 4,531 18,597 25,349 Paul D Camp Community CollegeVA151480347978 Wytheville Community CollegeVA784 1,131 374 2,289 Rappahannock Community CollegeVA490941382 1,813 Eastern Shore Community CollegeVA59254406719 Southwest Virginia Community CollegeVA340857656 1,853 Mountain Empire Community CollegeVA458838762 2,058 Dabney S Lancaster Community CollegeVA--813813 Patrick Henry Community CollegeVA417 1,013 897 2,327 Richard Bland College of the College of William and MaryVA-245932 1,177 Virginia Highlands Community CollegeVA224606959 1,789 New River Community CollegeVA722 1,260 1,068 3,050 Southside Virginia Community CollegeVA589 1,213 1,239 3,041 Blue Ridge Community CollegeVA537 1,820 1,336 3,693 Central Virginia Community CollegeVA342 1,064 1,658 3,064 Danville Community CollegeVA122637 1,940 2,699 Piedmont Virginia Community CollegeVA457 1,310 2,150 3,917 Lord Fairfax Community CollegeVA662 1,808 2,286 4,756 Germanna Community CollegeVA928 1,983 2,934 5,845 John Tyler Community CollegeVA894 2,482 3,132 6,508 Virginia Western Community CollegeVA569 1,828 3,217 5,614 Thomas Nelson Community CollegeVA 1,134 2,508 5,600 9,242 J Sargeant Reynolds Community CollegeVA 1,831 3,333 5,793 10,957 Tidewater Community CollegeVA 3,543 8,775 14,908 27,226 Northern Virginia Community CollegeVA 5,597 11,246 27,752 44,595 Community College of VermontVT684732 3,156 4,572 Grays Harbor CollegeWA154222423799 Bellingham Technical CollegeWA56109557722 Lower Columbia CollegeWA140359922 1,421 Big Bend Community CollegeWA79282952 1,313 Renton Technical CollegeWA14574 1,006 1,225 Skagit Valley CollegeWA596815 1,238 2,649 Clover Park Technical CollegeWA83291 1,239 1,613 Cascadia Community CollegeWA228408 1,431 2,067 Bates Technical CollegeWA1050 1,525 1,585 Seattle Community College-North CampusWA344460 1,569 2,373 Shoreline Community CollegeWA518611 1,666 2,795 Yakima Valley Community CollegeWA249625 1,776 2,650 Walla Walla Community CollegeWA369391 1,834 2,594 Wenatchee Valley CollegeWA155421 2,164 2,740 South Puget Sound Community CollegeWA296551 2,368 3,215 Pierce College at Fort SteilacoomWA 1,779 667 2,373 4,819 Highline Community CollegeWA475717 2,448 3,640 Pierce College at PuyallupWA-- 2,641 2,641 Whatcom Community CollegeWA1371 2,800 3,172 Edmonds Community CollegeWA668 1,152 2,891 4,711 Everett Community CollegeWA514958 3,149 4,621 Spokane Falls Community CollegeWA483950 3,230 4,663 Spokane Community CollegeWA390 1,192 3,353 4,935 Tacoma Community CollegeWA522 1,153 3,390 5,065 Green River Community CollegeWA524 1,107 3,471 5,102 Clark CollegeWA741 1,865 8,633 11,239 Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community CollegeWI-322-322 Nicolet Area Technical CollegeWI143627416 1,186 Southwest Wisconsin Technical CollegeWI183237897 1,317 Lakeshore Technical CollegeWI74 1,061 1,036 2,171 Mid-State Technical CollegeWI115 1,157 1,311 2,583 Wisconsin Indianhead Technical CollegeWI334 1,430 1,409 3,173 Northcentral Technical CollegeWI767 1,520 1,415 3,702 Moraine Park Technical CollegeWI355 1,134 1,848 3,337 Western Technical CollegeWI645 1,895 2,001 4,541 Blackhawk Technical CollegeWI85435 2,447 2,967 Chippewa Valley Technical CollegeWI297 1,160 3,382 4,839 Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegeWI664 1,801 3,952 6,417 Fox Valley Technical CollegeWI509 1,960 5,141 7,610 Waukesha County Technical CollegeWI148690 5,186 6,024 Gateway Technical CollegeWI498 1,249 6,042 7,789 University of Wisconsin CollegesWI 1,198 1,517 9,327 12,042 Milwaukee Area Technical CollegeWI 1,218 3,380 11,881 16,479 South Branch Career and Technical CenterWV--2121 Bridgemont Community and Technical CollegeWV190350179719 Carver Career CenterWV--183183 Mercer County Technical Education CenterWV--185185 Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical CollegeWV61167306534 Kanawha Valley Community and Technical CollegeWV34 1,010 390 1,434 Pierpont Community and Technical CollegeWV68 1,626 681 2,375 Blue Ridge Community and Technical CollegeWV-833 1,133 1,966 New River Community and Technical CollegeWV165660 1,199 2,024 Mountwest Community and Technical CollegeWV315432 1,416 2,163 West Virginia Northern Community CollegeWV105484 1,500 2,089 Southern West Virginia Community and Technical CollegeWV-400 1,618 2,018 Eastern Wyoming CollegeWY96204470770 Central Wyoming CollegeWY203561487 1,251 Northwest CollegeWY152536 1,086 1,774 Sheridan CollegeWY114526 1,399 2,039 Casper CollegeWY327893 1,673 2,893 Western Wyoming Community CollegeWY618545 1,758 2,921 Laramie County Community CollegeWY325 1,108 2,112 3,545
Here is the data table on GDrive for sharing / downloading.Summary by State Summary of US public 2-year institutions and online education enrollment by state for Fall 2012, from IPEDS State# exclusive online courses# some but not all online courses# at least one online course# no online coursesTotal Enrollment TOTALS 547,928 1,092,908 1,640,836 4,092,065 5,732,901 KY 32,366 567 32,933 39,947 72,880 ND 1,178 859 2,037 2,082 4,119 CO 14,209 13,577 27,786 54,213 81,999 AZ 27,736 46,513 74,249 92,783 167,032 KS 9,674 13,063 22,737 35,588 58,325 AK4697143138281 NC 34,058 77,353 111,411 107,579 218,990 IN 13,787 26,673 40,460 50,671 91,131 VT684732 1,416 3,156 4,572 NE 3,981 5,889 9,870 17,425 27,295 VA 20,850 47,632 68,482 81,541 150,023 AR 6,139 11,741 17,880 29,765 47,645 GA 17,564 33,925 51,489 86,487 137,976 NV 1,207 2,539 3,746 6,141 9,887 NM 7,322 12,817 20,139 40,099 60,238 WY 1,835 4,373 6,208 8,985 15,193 OK 7,309 14,875 22,184 38,726 60,910 MS 8,894 16,589 25,483 50,145 75,628 ID 2,353 7,418 9,771 10,279 20,050 WA 9,519 15,801 25,320 59,049 84,369 OR 10,674 20,368 31,042 64,591 95,633 OH 16,135 33,528 49,663 97,009 146,672 IA 7,621 16,343 23,964 46,294 70,258 TX 65,694 126,048 191,742 414,659 606,401 MN 11,696 25,468 37,164 74,772 111,936 SC 9,159 24,667 33,826 58,761 92,587 PA 11,767 21,705 33,472 93,095 126,567 MT629 1,772 2,401 4,965 7,366 WI 7,233 21,575 28,808 57,691 86,499 TN 7,190 17,982 25,172 62,644 87,816 MO 7,787 22,316 30,103 65,417 95,520 HI 1,715 4,483 6,198 15,971 22,169 CA 96,725 174,263 270,988 1,039,826 1,310,814 MD 8,799 19,832 28,631 97,079 125,710 SD433 1,041 1,474 4,723 6,197 UT 2,221 4,532 6,753 25,167 31,920 MI 13,202 24,165 37,367 153,609 190,976 FL 5,672 12,277 17,949 65,683 83,632 WV938 5,962 6,900 8,811 15,711 AL 4,529 15,964 20,493 57,264 77,757 IL 13,448 37,037 50,485 212,200 262,685 MA 4,491 15,431 19,922 73,881 93,803 NH528 1,966 2,494 10,121 12,615 ME568 2,595 3,163 11,618 14,781 NJ 5,580 21,663 27,243 129,660 156,903 LA 1,943 6,076 8,019 52,512 60,531 NY 8,616 51,228 59,844 209,587 269,431 CT 1,625 6,335 7,960 42,856 50,816 DE300 2,094 2,394 11,314 13,708 RI299 1,159 1,458 15,486 16,944 Summary of US public 2-year institutions and online education enrollment percentages by state for Fall 2012, from IPEDS State% exclusive online courses% some but not all online courses% at least one online course% no online coursesTotal Enrollment TOTALS10%19%29%71%5,732,901 KY44%1%45%55% 72,880 ND29%21%49%51% 4,119 CO17%17%34%66% 81,999 AZ17%28%44%56% 167,032 KS17%22%39%61% 58,325 AK16%35%51%49%281 NC16%35%51%49% 218,990 IN15%29%44%56% 91,131 VT15%16%31%69% 4,572 NE15%22%36%64% 27,295 VA14%32%46%54% 150,023 AR13%25%38%62% 47,645 GA13%25%37%63% 137,976 NV12%26%38%62% 9,887 NM12%21%33%67% 60,238 WY12%29%41%59% 15,193 OK12%24%36%64% 60,910 MS12%22%34%66% 75,628 ID12%37%49%51% 20,050 WA11%19%30%70% 84,369 OR11%21%32%68% 95,633 OH11%23%34%66% 146,672 IA11%23%34%66% 70,258 TX11%21%32%68% 606,401 MN10%23%33%67% 111,936 SC10%27%37%63% 92,587 PA9%17%26%74% 126,567 MT9%24%33%67% 7,366 WI8%25%33%67% 86,499 TN8%20%29%71% 87,816 MO8%23%32%68% 95,520 HI8%20%28%72% 22,169 CA7%13%21%79% 1,310,814 MD7%16%23%77% 125,710 SD7%17%24%76% 6,197 UT7%14%21%79% 31,920 MI7%13%20%80% 190,976 FL7%15%21%79% 83,632 WV6%38%44%56% 15,711 AL6%21%26%74% 77,757 IL5%14%19%81% 262,685 MA5%16%21%79% 93,803 NH4%16%20%80% 12,615 ME4%18%21%79% 14,781 NJ4%14%17%83% 156,903 LA3%10%13%87% 60,531 NY3%19%22%78% 269,431 CT3%12%16%84% 50,816 DE2%15%17%83% 13,708 RI2%7%9%91% 16,944
Here is the data table on GDrive for sharing / downloading.Michigan Institutions Listing of Michigan public 2-year institutions and summary of Fall 2012 online education enrollment, from IPEDS MI Institutions# exclusive online courses# some but not all online courses# at least one online course# no online coursesTotal Enrollment TOTALS 13,202 24,165 37,367 153,609 190,976 Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College---8181 Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College---105105 Bay Mills Community College157112269263532 Glen Oaks Community College43227270540810 Gogebic Community College62262324636960 West Shore Community College105224329818 1,147 Kirtland Community College251365616 1,031 1,647 Alpena Community College61239300 1,313 1,613 Bay de Noc Community College126810936 1,316 2,252 Montcalm Community College75269344 1,325 1,669 North Central Michigan College304422726 1,653 2,379 Monroe County Community College104350454 2,052 2,506 Southwestern Michigan College26567 2,241 2,308 Muskegon Community College-758758 2,342 3,100 Mid Michigan Community College262677939 2,370 3,309 Lake Michigan College121361482 3,067 3,549 St Clair County Community College236437673 3,206 3,879 Northwestern Michigan College282827 1,109 3,289 4,398 Kellogg Community College451662 1,113 3,911 5,024 Jackson Community College696 1,054 1,750 4,055 5,805 Schoolcraft College 2,372 1,739 4,111 5,691 9,802 Delta College320 2,520 2,840 6,069 8,909 Mott Community College240473713 7,550 8,263 Washtenaw Community College463 1,126 1,589 9,122 10,711 Kalamazoo Valley Community College241884 1,125 9,193 10,318 Wayne County Community College District 1,512 1,986 3,498 11,189 14,687 Macomb Community College 1,007 1,558 2,565 11,491 14,056 Henry Ford Community College 1,031 1,776 2,807 13,183 15,990 Grand Rapids Community College860 2,604 3,464 13,215 16,679 Oakland Community College427 1,048 1,475 14,279 15,754 Lansing Community College 1,391 330 1,721 17,013 18,734 Listing of Michigan public 2-year institutions and percentage of Fall 2012 online education enrollment, from IPEDS MI Institutions% exclusive online courses% some but not all online courses% at least one online course% no online coursesTotal Enrollment TOTALS7%13%20%80% 190,976 Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College0%0%0%100%81 Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College0%0%0%100%105 Bay Mills Community College30%21%51%49%532 Glen Oaks Community College5%28%33%67%810 Gogebic Community College6%27%34%66%960 West Shore Community College9%20%29%71% 1,147 Kirtland Community College15%22%37%63% 1,647 Alpena Community College4%15%19%81% 1,613 Bay de Noc Community College6%36%42%58% 2,252 Montcalm Community College4%16%21%79% 1,669 North Central Michigan College13%18%31%69% 2,379 Monroe County Community College4%14%18%82% 2,506 Southwestern Michigan College0%3%3%97% 2,308 Muskegon Community College0%24%24%76% 3,100 Mid Michigan Community College8%20%28%72% 3,309 Lake Michigan College3%10%14%86% 3,549 St Clair County Community College6%11%17%83% 3,879 Northwestern Michigan College6%19%25%75% 4,398 Kellogg Community College9%13%22%78% 5,024 Jackson Community College12%18%30%70% 5,805 Schoolcraft College24%18%42%58% 9,802 Delta College4%28%32%68% 8,909 Mott Community College3%6%9%91% 8,263 Washtenaw Community College4%11%15%85% 10,711 Kalamazoo Valley Community College2%9%11%89% 10,318 Wayne County Community College District10%14%24%76% 14,687 Macomb Community College7%11%18%82% 14,056 Henry Ford Community College6%11%18%82% 15,990 Grand Rapids Community College5%16%21%79% 16,679 Oakland Community College3%7%9%91% 15,754 Lansing Community College7%2%9%91% 18,734
Here is the data table on GDrive for sharing / downloading.
As before, feedback is welcome including if the data is accurate.
The post Online Education in US Public 2-year Institutions, focus on Michigan appeared first on e-Literate.
Last fall I mentioned two new non-survey data sources available to track LMS adoption within higher ed. While surveys for subjective, attitudinal information still make sense, surveys of hard data are losing their value over time. Analyses of automatically collected system data place less of a burden on the organizations providing the information, and these analyses also allow a more agile approach to refining the data collection and viewing from different angles. Today Edutechnica released a new report on LMS adoption that demonstrates these benefits.
When we provided our initial analysis of LMS usage in fall of 2013, one point of feedback that we heard loud and clear is that because our data only included institutions with greater than 2000 enrollments, we excluded a fair number of community colleges, career colleges, and liberal arts colleges. To the credit of those who provided this feedback, they were absolutely correct. Three-quarters of all recognized higher education institutions in the United States have fewer than 2500 FTE – a critical demographic as the majority of universities in the US are of this size or smaller. To more fairly represent LMS usage we needed to include data on smaller schools.
We are now excited to be able to provide analysis of a data set for institutions with greater than 1000 students.
The team presents the raw data for schools above 1,000 FTE, calling out some of the differences from their earlier report. But one key view they provided is looking at institutional LMS adoption per school enrollment size.
Seeing Moodle’s increased usage prompted us to investigate Moodle further. An interesting thing happens below 2500 FTE; Moodle actually exceeds Blackboard’s market share. Only after this point do the demographic segments diverge.
While this data confirms a commonly-held assumption about Moodle’s popularity at small schools, it is quite valuable to have data available on a per-enrollment basis. Kudos to George Kroner and team for further developing their data set in response to reader feedback.
There’s more information at the post that’s worth exploring.