Quality in Part-time Technology Education John Baker, Sr. ([email protected])[email protected] Director, Undergraduate Technology Programs School of Professional Studies

Quality in Part-time Technology Education

John Baker, Sr. ([email protected])Director, Undergraduate Technology Programs

School of Professional StudiesIn Business and EducationJohns Hopkins University

mailto:[email protected]

FISSEA - March 2005 2

Adult Undergraduates• Need to maintain employment

– Most work ¾-time or more– Travel as part of work

• Time demands for other activities– Family

– 2nd job or volunteer work

• Cost of a traditional education• Tuition

– Some have employer assistance– Fewer grants and scholarships available


Adult Undergraduates• Employment focused schooling

– Highly motivated\focused on education– Job\career advancement– Change career– Less interest in pure research

• Age\experience difference– Out of school several years, hesitant about returning– College\university experience ranges from 0 – 100+ credits

• Inadequate\incomplete academic preparation– Writing, communications, research methods

• Concerns about quality education in P/T programs


Program Quality

• Mandated and elective competencies– University, school, department, program– Profession – Business & government– Students– Faculty

• Competency and standards-based learning outcomes in all degree programs

• Translation of competencies to a quality program


‘Other’ quality details• Extensive outcomes-oriented faculty development• Classrooms and facility support• Scheduling

– For adult students

– At multiple sites

• Student support– Academic and professional

– Adult-oriented and focused support services

• Building community– Connecting students to the University


Competencies• Specific content area material

– Both theoretical and practical – Balance with some hands-on– Areas that impact: business/government, profession, department,

faculty and students• ‘Softer’ skills

– Information Literacy and research– Communications

• Writing, presentations, professional communication styles, team work– Critical thinking, problem solving, human relations\interpersonal

skills– Leadership & change (values based decision-making)– Historical & global perspectives– Areas that impact: University, school, business/government,

profession, faculty


Competencies

• Different levels of instruction– Introductory – typically more skills based– Intermediate – some hands-on, but more focused on

multiple areas– Advanced – managerial or research

• Program Quality Review– Periodic review and update of program– Focus on purpose, structure, content and level of

material


Competencies and Programs Varying requirements in an undergraduate degree

General Ed Req.

Technology Education Standards

University / School Requir.

Student Objectives

Business Objectives

Program Objectives

Advanced Degree Objectives

Individual Course Objectives

Quality Competencies


Content Approach• Define curriculum (120 credits)

– Core Curriculum, Liberal Arts or Business base defined– Partner with other institutions (joint programs,

articulation agreements, working relationships)

– Decide which competencies are in each course and how they fit together

• Degree completion– All 60 upper-level credits part of JHU program– Prerequisites defined– Course sequencing determined– Include theory and practice


Undergraduate Degree

• B.S. Information Systems• 1st 60 credits

– Liberal arts base (11 courses)– Business base (3)– Electives (6)– Done thru partnerships

• Last 60 credits – Primarily Technology Focus– Foundation (7 courses)– Writing (2)– Concentrations (8)– Program completion (3)

Liberal Arts base

Business base

Electives

Foundation & WritingH

CIS

Web

/Int

erne

t

Ent

erpr

ise

Sec

urity

Gen

eral

IT

Stu

dies

Dig

ital F

oren

sics

General IT Studies

Program Completion


Foundation• Writing (2)

– Professional Research and Writing– Business Communications

• Technology (7)– Technology and Society (ethics & legal issues– Hardware, Software, and OS Basics – Networking and Telecommunications– Database Theory and Data Management– System Analysis and Design– Program Design– Information Assurance Principles


Security Program

• Security is central to– Effective I.T. operations– Reliable information systems

• Security operations professionals– Knowledge of security

operations– Skills to develop and

implement a security plan.

• Approach– Broad range of I.T. security

topics– Technical and entry-level

managerial issues

• Software and OS Security• Securing Networks and

Telecommunications• Encryption and Cryptography• Non-Technical Security Issues• Web Principles and Web Page

Design• Principles of Web/E-

Commerce Security • Concepts of Security Testing

and Auditing• Designing and Operating a

Security Program


Digital Forensics Program

• DF business requirements– Sarbanes-Oxley & others– Reliable & information in

reporting or find problems

• Operations– Knowledge of DF processes – Skills to investigate and

resolve issues, and work with law enforcement (as needed)

• Approach– Focused on requirements for

business– Technical and managerial

issues

• Encryption & Cryptography• Operating Systems and File

Structures• Legal & Ethical Issues in DF• Forensic Computing• Computer Media Forensics• Network Forensics• Intrusion forensics• Digital Forensics and the

Courtroom


Program Completion

• Project Management • Technology Management • Information Technology Senior Project

– Sr. citizens pamphlet for Internet Security– Wireless Internet access provided by city– Health Information Systems in Physicians Offices:

Issues, Policies, and Potential Benefits– Security audit for an organization– Develop Student support web site– System strategic plan and game development for at-risk

youth program


Faculty Quality• Hiring process

– Personal interviews & recommendation checking– What to look for

• ‘Initiation’ process– Observe an experienced instructor– Team teach a session– Faculty guide, student guide and teaching checklist

• Course evaluation– Director observes their class– Mind-term course evaluations– Final course evaluations– Direct student feedback

• Faculty meetings


Faculty Quality Project(Backward Design)

• Courses consistency– taught by different adjunct faculty in multiple locations

• Outcomes-based assessment– Assessment method encouraged by accreditation standards

• Adjunct faculty connected – Meaningfully to the program and the university

• Consistently emphasizing competencies – In every course offering

• Backgrounds vary– Technically adept, but don’t know how to teach professionally– Good teachers but don’t know technology

• Balancing: hands-on, theory, KSA's, ‘softer skills’


Backward Design Project(Stage 1)

Issue:What do I want my students to know and what do I want them to be able to do?

Solution:• Identify the broad ideas and principles that you want your students to

understand and consider. • Identify knowledge and skills your students will acquire during your

course.

– substantive knowledge related to the topic

– related skills to be introduced or reinforced through class sessions or assignments


Faculty Liaison Project(Stage 2)

Issue:How will I present the material in a way that will facilitate understanding and achievement of the identified desired results?

Solution:• Identify teaching strategies

• Create learning activities that are engaging and effective

• Ensure that you help students know where they are headed and why– where is the work headed?

– hook students

– explore in depth

– rethink big ideas

– evaluate and develop plan


Backward Design Project(Stage 3)

Issue:How will I know and prove that they are getting it?

Solution:• Identify evidence of learning (identified results have been achieved)

– articulate formal and informal assessments (multiple assessment methods)

– determine where to look for sufficient and revealing evidence of understanding

– type of performance or behavior that indicates understanding

• Decide how to determine and distinguish degrees of understanding

– criteria for identifying degree of understanding


Faculty Liaison Project(Final Step)

Incorporate general undergrad competencies and illustrate how each class will introduce

or reinforce them


Facilities• Proper classroom environment

– ‘Regular’ classroom technology• Computer labs

– Multi-use vs. selected use labs (& scheduling)– Wireless access– Security– Access (program and non-program students)– Up-to-date equipment vs. older equipment– Support

• Hardware, software, center staff training• Faculty training for our processes\operations

• Facility scheduling– Limited resources– Multiple program locations


Scheduling - Traditional Model

• Scheduling directed toward traditional student

• Students:– Don’t know what is happening beyond this semester– Can’t plan– Feel their program has a ‘lack of direction’

• No ‘end in sight’ for non-traditional student

• Missing Adult Learner schedule– Few/no complete programs completely available in

evening or weekend formats• Not very responsive to student needs from outside the

institution


What to do?

• Focus schedule on helping them to finish their degree

• Recognize non-school distractions

– Work & travel

– Family & other activities

• Help with long-range schedule planning

– Provide detailed program planning

– Provide detailed scheduling information


Scheduling

• Full degree– ‘Cohort’ model– Fast track completion (60 credits in 2½ years)

• Process (years in advance)

– Determine ‘available’ and ‘off’ dates in a year– Set start date– Count out the terms

• Publish schedule for cohort and non-cohort students


Scheduling

• 10 week sessions, 4 per year• 2 different courses per session• Alternate weeknights or Saturday all day• Down-time

– Breaks for major holidays– 7+ weeks off in summer

• ‘Common’ day & time schedule for all programs• Schedule some course or class sessions in specific

locations• I.T. Senior Project over 2 terms (20+ weeks)


Challenges

• Requires more than average administrative interaction – Program Director– Student advising

• Financial aid & non-traditional scheduling– Counting students as F/T vs. P/T

• Challenges created by student cohorts– Groups / cliques form after a few sessions– The instructor becomes the outsider– Groups can become very demanding

• Limited/no program flexibility (with trade-offs)– Students can plan their lives– They see a defined end-point


On the ‘Plus’ side• Provides students a clear path to completion:

– Program course requirements well defined– Scheduling clear

• Scheduling:– Easier (for you and them)

• Faculty, facilities– Students can plan for years in advance– Day and time schedule always the same

• Courses may change– Students finish in 2½ years

• One semester longer than traditional programs


On the ‘Plus’ side• Key:

– Get students to understand your academic expectation levels early

– Keep in contact– Address problems immediately

• Long-term student friendships:– Attend graduate school together (as a cohort)– Maintain contact– Bonds beyond the program– Cohorts become families

• Students support each other


Student Support(Advising)

• Inquiry to post grad follow-up• Extensive pre-admission communication• Problem solving orientation• Flexible and accessible advising schedule• Proactive

– Review program charts periodically

• Student centered (1 advisor for a student)


Student Support

• Financial Aid (limited)• Full library services at all remote sites• Career counseling

– Job Fairs– Resume building– Job database

• Access to administration and faculty• Registration flexibility and support• Getting ‘connected’ with the university community

– Ability to use most all of its facilities


Building Community

• Orientation• Back to School Nights – Alumni Association• Phone calls and visits to all courses by Director• Student organizations

– Active and involved Alpha Sigma Lambda (Liberal Arts)– Delta Sigma Pi for Business undergraduates and alumni

• Annual Networking Event • Undergraduate Symposium – Ginder Lecture• Undergraduate Recognition Ceremony at graduation


Signs of Success

• 94% graduate in 3 years• 40% go to graduate school• Feedback from Undergraduate Experience Survey being

used to affect change• Contributed the student learning outcomes approach to

Middle States accreditation for JHU• Recognized in MSCHE 2004 Accreditation Report• Other Hopkins’ schools have an enhanced appreciation of

adult undergraduates • Undergraduate leaders in the University Alumni

Association


Next Steps…• Hybrid course offerings

• Targeted degrees (continue with area specific)

• Integrated/dual/joint programs

• Career services imbedded in degree programs

• Alumni mentoring system

• Student\Alumni advisory committee

• Student portfolio for all programs

Questions ?

John Baker ([email protected])

Documents

Quality in Part-time Technology Education John Baker, Sr. ([email protected])[email protected] Director, Undergraduate Technology Programs School of Professional Studies