Student Services for Online
Learning: Finding the Student’s
Perspective
Prepared for Fort Hays State
University
December
2012
In the following report, Hanover Research reviews innovations and changes in student
services for online/distance learning among higher education institutions. We focus on
developing a sense of the student’s perspective on technologies appropriate and effective
for online learning, and review expert suggestions on how institutions can align their
practices with these student expectations. To highlight application of the literature, we
also profile 21 peer online programs to catalog the student affairs services offered to
online learners.
Hanover Research | December 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................4
KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................5
Section One: Online Student Services ............................................................................... 6
ROLE OF ONLINE STUDENT SERVICES ...............................................................................................6
Placing Core Services Online ..............................................................................................6
Academic Support for Online Students .............................................................................6
Extracurricular Activities for Online Students ...................................................................8
INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE ........................................................................................9
Section Two: Student Perspectives ................................................................................. 12
STUDENT TECHNOLOGY USE ........................................................................................................14
Learner Type, Gender, Ethnicity, and Uncontrollable Factors ........................................14
Outcomes of Technology Use: Expectations and Realities..............................................15
ADAPTING SERVICES TO STUDENT DEMANDS ..................................................................................17
Section III: Catalog of Peer Services ................................................................................ 19
PEER SELECTION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................19
CATALOG OF PEER SERVICES ........................................................................................................20
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT ONLINE PROGRAM RANKING PEERS ......................................................22
Arizona State University ..................................................................................................22
Ball State University .........................................................................................................22
Central Michigan University ............................................................................................23
East Tennessee State University ......................................................................................23
Florida International University .......................................................................................23
Regent University.............................................................................................................24
Sam Houston State University .........................................................................................24
Stephen F. Austin State University ..................................................................................24
Troy University .................................................................................................................25
University of Bridgeport ..................................................................................................25
University of North Dakota ..............................................................................................25
Washington State University ...........................................................................................25
Western Kentucky University ..........................................................................................26
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
2
Hanover Research | December 2012
NCES ONLINE FOR-PROFIT PEERS ................................................................................................26
Ashford University ...........................................................................................................26
Capella University ............................................................................................................27
Colorado Technical University .........................................................................................27
DeVry University ..............................................................................................................27
Full Sail University ............................................................................................................27
Kaplan University .............................................................................................................28
University of Phoenix .......................................................................................................28
Walden University ...........................................................................................................28
Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 30
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
3
Hanover Research | December 2012
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
In an article for the e-journal Student Affairs Online (2008), Kevin Guidry challenged the
(mis)perception that “student affairs professionals are not technologically savvy, creative, or
up-to-date.” On the contrary, he argued, there is historical evidence to suggest that student
affairs offices have aligned their practices to utilize the most current technology available.
However, where they have failed is in finding the student’s perspective: “There is little
evidence […to suggest] that student affairs administrators and researchers regularly and
systematically sought to understand how and why students used technology and the impact
on their development.”1
This knowledge gap will become increasingly important to overcome as online learning
continues to expand at a rapid pace. According to data presented in The Chronicle of Higher
Education, student enrollment in online-only higher education programs approximately
tripled from 2004 to 2009, with 2.14 million such students enrolled in 2009.2 A survey by the
Instructional Technology Council (ITC) in 2011 observed, according to self-reporting by
distance program administrators, an increase in distance enrollment of nine percent in
2010. Additionally, in the 2011 academic year, “campuses reported an 8.2 percent increase
for distance education enrollments – substantially higher than the overall increase in
national campus enrollments, which averaged less than one percent nationally.” 3
Furthermore, the ITC noted that since its first survey administration in 2005, “the gap
between distance learning and face-to-face student completion rates has significantly
narrowed. Half of the survey respondents [2011] indicated that they have achieved
equivalency.”4
In the following report, Hanover Research reviews innovations and changes in student
services for online/distance learning among higher education institutions (Section One). We
focus on developing a sense of the student’s perspective on technologies appropriate and
effective for online learning, and review expert suggestions on how institutions can align
their practices with these student expectations (Section Two). To provide an application of
this literature, we also profile 21 peer online programs to catalog the student affairs
services offered to online learners (Section Three).
1
Guidry, K.A. “Exploding a Myth: Student Affairs’ Historical Relationship with Technology.” Student Affairs Online 9,
no.2 (Summer 2008): http://studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Summer_2008/ExplodingaMyth.html
2
“Online Learning: By The Numbers.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 31, 2010.
http://chronicle.com/article/Online-Learning-Enrollment/125202/
3
The findings from the ITC survey are discussed in more detail in Section One, subsection two. ITC. “2011 Distance
Education Survey Results: Trends in eLearning: Tracking the Impact of eLearning At Community Colleges.” March
2012 (accessed September 6, 2012). p. 7.
http://www.itcnetwork.org/attachments/article/87/ITCAnnualSurveyMarch2012.pdf
4
Ibid., p. 20.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
4
Hanover Research | December 2012
KEY FINDINGS

Some student affairs services must be online due to their benefits to both online
and traditional students. Library services, financial services, and typical
administrative processes seem best delivered in a hybrid model to account for the
demands of both student groups. Students seek efficiency and consistency in online
student affairs services.

Online learners do not seem interested in achieving full equivalency with the
traditional academic experience. Students want to use technology to share
meaningful, vetted information rather than as a tool to build new social
relationships. In some instances students have formed academic or professionallyoriented online clubs or peer networking groups. Through these academic and
professional exchanges, students develop greater affiliation with the institution.

Mentoring programs seem to be the most appreciated new service for online
students on all sides of the issue. Students can engage in personalized but
professional conversations with colleagues in their desired field of interest on topics
such as academics, navigating the workplace, personal issues, time management,
and finding a work-life balance. However, few peers reviewed for this report seem to
offer faculty or professional mentoring opportunities for online students.

Additional programming to help students gain the confidence and skill-set needed
to engage in online learning is in high demand from students and administrators.
Administrators’ greatest challenge is not perceived to be the quantity or quality of
online student affairs offerings, but the readiness of online students for their
academic environment. Students, as well, have asked for additional programming
that will help them manage their time, responsibilities, and the technology used in
the online learning environment. Most peers reviewed for this report seem to focus
on providing technology support services and information relevant to accessing the
online “classroom,” but not necessarily on time-management and personal skills.

Institutions must take the time to learn what their students need and develop
appropriate solutions. Students generally demand quality, tailored services and
applications that will help them succeed. Institutions, however, need to balance this
demand for quality with the demand for multiple, integrated delivery formats from
which students can choose.

The placement of online learning services within broader institutional
administrative structures seems to provide challenges to making online student
affairs distinct. Many institutions refer students to external general-campus sites for
typical student services. It is rare to see services like academic, career, or personal
counseling tailored to the online learner.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
5
Hanover Research | December 2012
SECTION ONE : ONLINE STUDENT SERVICES
ROLE OF ONLINE STUDENT SERVICES
Online student services span both distance and traditional education as institutions
increasingly make routine interactions such as academic counseling or financial aid discussions
available through online forms or media. Blogs, wikis, and other discussion forums are used in
the classroom, along with a variety of other media including social networking and the nowstandard e-mail. None of these services necessarily usurp the in-person opportunities for oncampus students, and none necessarily target the needs of distance, online, or off-campus
students. But a new role is emerging for online student services as an increasingly greater
number of students are taking courses or degree programs online.
PLACING CORE SERVICES ONLINE
There are some student services which institutions have acknowledged must be available to
distance learners. Patricia A. Shea (2005) noted that “[p]utting student services online is no
longer optional . . . Today, an institution’s Web site often provides the first impression a
student has with a campus.”5 Institutions continue to engage with their students through
online platforms and media, from matriculation to graduation to post-graduation experiences.
Distance students might argue that all services must be available online. However, even oncampus students have benefitted from the availability of administrative core, academic,
communications, personal services, and student communities “suites.”6
Researchers have noted that libraries, in particular, have largely kept on top of technology
changes to incorporate more services that students can use from a distance, whether they are
distance learners or just not present at the library while doing projects or searches. Simone
Primus (2009) observed that “instant messenger, chat, or online conferencing software are
commonplace,” and additional technologies include podcasts, research guides and tutorials,
blogs and wikis, social networks, and additional “library 2.0” offerings. She concludes that, “in
responding to the needs of the new digital learner, libraries are no longer place-based.”7
ACADEMIC SUPPORT FOR ONLINE STUDENTS
Beyond these core student services, institutions are pushing further to provide a better online
learning experience that can drive students’ academic success. Alan Tripp (2008) noted the
trend to develop online models for success coaching, explaining
In the past 5 years, a new approach to improving student retention, called success
coaching, has been implemented at leading online universities including Westwood
5
Shea, P.A. “Serving Students Online: Enhancing Their Learning Experience.” New Directions for Student Services no.
112 (Winter 2005): 15.
6
Ibid., p. 16.
7
Primus, S. “Distance Learning Library Services: Keeping Up With the Times.” Distance Learning 6, no. 1 (2009): 22-26.
Accessed through ProQuest. See also [1] Batson-George, A. “An Overview of Distance Library Services at Nova
Southeastern University’s Main Library.” Distance Learning 4, no. 3 (2007):55-58. Accessed through ProQuest.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
6
Hanover Research | December 2012
College Online, DeVry University Online, and the online division of Northeastern
University’s School of Professional and Continuing Studies. Originally developed by a
company in San Francisco, InsideTrack, success coaching is based on a philosophy
that for students of any age, achievement depends on the presence of multiple
factors, including proactive guidance, frequent feedback, a sense of purpose, and
regular support and motivation.8
Success coaching works toward this philosophy through regular one-on-one communication
between the student and a certified coach. “A coach’s primary role,” Tripp writes, “is to
empower online students by providing support, direction, advice and motivation tailored
specifically to their needs.”9 Molly Redden (2011) reported for The Chronicle of Higher
Education that an online mentorship program pairing professionals in the field with
students helped raise retention of at-risk students in science fields. This program, managed
by the non-profit MentorNet rather than a specific higher education institution, provided
culturally-appropriate feedback for students with a “bridge to the reality of the
workplace.” 10 The organization “guides the relationships” for up to eight months,
“encouraging [mentors and students] to talk about job searches, personal barriers, or
possible career paths that would fit well with their personal goals.”11
Success coaching and mentoring do not necessarily need to be facilitated directly by a
faculty or affiliate member, as in these previous examples. In a discussion of online and
traditional learning, Mark David Milliron (2010) pointed to “an online student-service
support system called Atlas that builds momentum for the student from first contact
through completion.”12 Atlas was developed by Valencia Community College in an effort to
create an online learning community linking students with faculty and other staff
members, such as registrars, bursars, and financial aid administrators.13 The user process
was described by Milliron as follows:
Students fill out a full profile and degree plan in a first-semester course devoted to
student success, which helps them develop their ‘Life Map’ through to a degree.
From that point on, Atlas/Life Map is their virtual connection to the college and
pathway to their academic goal.14
He noted that “this type of strategy has contributed to Valencia’s graduation rate being
almost triple that of its peer institutions.”15
8
Tripp, A. “Closing the Distance: Success Coaching for Online Education Goes Mainstream.” Distance Learning 5, no. 1
(2008): 39. Accessed through ProQuest.
9
Ibid., p. 41.
10
Redden, M. “Online-Mentor Program Raises Retention of At-Risk Science Students.” The Chronicle of Higher
Education. September 11, 2011. http://chronicle.com/article/Online-Mentor-Program-Raises/128925/
11
Ibid.
12
Milliron, M.D. “Online Education vs. Traditional Learning: Time to End the Family Feud.” The Chronicle of Higher
Education. October 31, 2010. http://chronicle.com/article/Online-vs-Traditional/125115/
13
“What is Atlas?” at Valencia College. “Atlas Login.” Accessed October 11, 2012. https://atlas.valenciacollege.edu/#
14
Milliron, “Online Education vs. Traditional Learning,” Op. cit.
15
The article contains additional examples from Purdue University and Western Governors University. Ibid.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
7
Hanover Research | December 2012
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES FOR ONLINE STUDENTS
Although core services, such as libraries or financial aid, may have moved online, and
academic support for online students has become more sophisticated, the question still
remains of whether online learning can “reproduce the full college experience.” In
particular, this would entail the reproduction of the social and extracurricular opportunities
available to traditional college students.16 It has been suggested, however, that online
programs have “not [done] as much as they should” to “help students participate in
extracurricular activities.” Partly, this owes to the nature of online learning. In addition to
the “insularity and isolation” inherent in the situation of the online student, many students
use distance learning precisely because of the flexibility that allows them to juggle other
demands, including work and family, which leave them with little of the “leisure time” that
traditional students have to explore extracurricular activities.17
However, a number of institutions have taken steps to provide online students with
opportunities to better integrate with the institution or their classmates outside of the
classroom. At the University of Maryland-University College (UMUC), for instance, which is
the online arm of the Maryland university system, the history department, concerned about
“student involvement in the life of the program, the university, and within the broader
[history] profession,” took its own initiative in creating a “virtual student community.” At
first, the department made “traditional efforts” at creating community, which included an
annual essay-writing contest, a t-shirt sale to raise funds for student activities and help
create a “collective identity,” and bringing students and faculty together face-to-face
whenever possible.18
Going beyond these initial steps, the UMUC history department created a dedicated online
discussion site for all history majors – essentially a non-credit course on the UMUC platform
in which all majors would be automatically enrolled. The site was named PHAT 999, based
on the initials of the national history honor society, Phi Alpha Theta. In addition to its
general communication purposes, the site became the home for UMUC’s “local chapter” of
Phi Alpha Theta. Students were encouraged to work towards membership in the honor
society, and the chapter would sponsor “guest speakers” through the PHAT 999 discussion
site, who would present on topics such as career and graduate study opportunities. The
honor society also provided a focus for in-person gatherings – students could attend
regional and national gatherings of Phi Alpha Theta, and UMUC itself hosted the regional
16
Karen McKeown. “Can Online Learning Reproduce the Full College Experience?”. Heritage Foundation. March 13,
2012. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/can-online-learning-reproduce-the-full-collegeexperience
17
Jill Rooney. “The Value of Extracurricular Activities for Online Students.” The Open Academic. October 4, 2011.
http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2011/10/04/extracurricular-activities-online-students/
18
Bud Burkhard. “Creating a Virtual Student Community at the University of Maryland.” Perspectives on History
(American Historical Association). May 2007.
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2007/0705/0705tea1.cfm
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
8
Hanover Research | December 2012
conference one year.19 The history honor society is just one of nine available to UMUC
students, including Alpha Sigma Lambda, an honor society for adult college students.20
Honor societies and student groups such as these appear to be one of the more common
ways that online programs build community. One common theme, however, is that many of
them are organized by students, rather than institutions or administrators. At Penn State
University’s online World Campus, for instance, students in the online bachelor’s degree in
psychology used the university’s student clubs guide to start a psychology club. The club
sponsors online events, using video conferencing to host guest speakers from the faculty,
and uses social media to disseminate information relevant to the field. 21 At the Florida
Institute of Technology, a student started an online service fraternity in 2009 after being
unable to find any similar organization in existence. The group essentially coordinates the
volunteer efforts of its members (24 as of 2010) in their local communities (e.g., through
information sharing).22 The group was founded with the help of a FIT faculty advisor.23
There is some indication that online students are interested in joining clubs “primarily for
professional reasons,” versus the presumably more recreational or socially-oriented motives
of traditional students. At UMUC, a survey of students who had joined clubs revealed that
80 percent had joined “primarily for networking and career building”; a co-founder of the
psychology club at Penn State estimated that 70 percent of its members had joined for
similar reasons.24
INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE
Given the changing role of online student services, how do administrators anticipate future
need and effective avenues for innovation? To answer this second question we can turn to
two main sources: a survey of administrators, and studies of faculty in online settings. These
findings present a snapshot of existing offerings and expectations for the future that can be
compared to what students use and believe (addressed in Section Two).
The Instructional Technology Council (ITC) has conducted a survey of distance education
each year since 2005. In its 2011 report the organization identifies the scope of participation
in distance education and reviews feedback from survey respondents on perceived needs
and changes for the field. In 2011 the ITC surveyed 375 member institutions, receiving 143
completed responses largely from directors of distance learning programs. Importantly, “a
longitudinal review established a strong continuity amongst completers – 70 percent of the
19
Bud Burkhard. Ibid.
“Honor Societies.” University of Maryland-University College.
http://www.umuc.edu/students/support/studentlife/honors.cfm
21
“Penn State Students Create an Online Psychology Club.” Penn State Live. March 1, 2010.
http://live.psu.edu/story/44891#rss57
22
“An Online Fraternity.” Inside Higher Ed. April 30, 2010.
http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2010/04/30/online-fraternity
23
“History.” Theta Omega Gamma – Florida Institute of Technology. http://togfraternity.org/history.html
24
Kolowich, S. “Student Clubs, Virtually.” Inside Higher Ed. March 10, 2010.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/10/clubs
20
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
9
Hanover Research | December 2012
annual submissions have come from the same campuses during the seven years of the
survey.”25 Questions were organized into four categories within the topic of distance
education: general information, administrative, faculty, and student services.
The greatest challenges for distance education program administrators in 2011, by rank,
were found to be “adequate student services for distance education students” and
“adequate assessment of distance education
classes”.26 However, online student services are not
Distance program
the administrators’ perceived greatest challenge for
administrators are more
students enrolled in distance education courses.
worried
about their students’
“Providing equivalent student services virtually” is
preparation for an online
only the fifth (of eight) greatest challenge for
learning environment than
students, by rank. Rather, while students increasingly
about their access to
seek online courses, many administrators feel
particular online student
students are not prepared for what they seek. The
affairs offerings.
authors wrote, “[Administrators] see a lack of basic
computer skills, a misunderstanding of the online
learning environment, and insufficient student study skills.” Such “orientation/preparation
for taking distance education courses” has been fairly consistently the top-ranked challenge
for students since 2005 (five times first, three times second in rank).27
It is not simply a matter of experience with online learning that will make students
successful. Dale Kirby, Michael K. Barbour, and Dennis B. Sharpe (2012) argue that it is the
skill-set related to self-study, such as independent learning and motivation, that matters
more. Their study compared learning experiences and attitudes of online learners in
postsecondary institutions who either had or had not had previous experience with online
learning in secondary school. They found that previous experience had little influence.28
Other observers suggest that additional services may be needed to help students prepare
for and succeed in the online learning environment. Shea (2005) noted several best
practices in online student services for a mixed audience of traditional and online learners.
She suggested that online student services be characterized as student-centered, blended,
personalized, customized, customizable, convenient, and just-in-time. Additional features to
be offered include:

Two-way communication strategies: providing avenues for students to generate
dialogues with key institution faculty and staff, and vice-versa
25
ITC, “2011 Distance Education Survey Results,” Op. cit., p. 6.
Ibid., p. 9.
27
Ibid., p. 18. See also [1] ITC. “2011 Distance Education Survey Results.” April 2012 (accessed September 6, 2012).
http://www.itcnetwork.org/component/content/article/48-library-articles-abstracts-research/87-2011-distanceeducation-survey-results-.html [2] Chau, J. “Distance-Learning Survey Shows Growing Concern for Student
Services.” The Wired Campus blog. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 24, 2012 (accessed September 6,
2012). http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/distance-learning-survey-shows-growing-concern-for-studentservices/36121
28
Kirby, D., Barbour, M.K., and Sharpe, D.B. “Student Perceptions and Preferences for Tertiary Online Courses: Does
Prior High School Distance Learning Make a Difference?” The American Journal of Distance Education 26, no. 1
(2012): 34-49. www.eden-online.org/system/files/77_Kirby_Sharpe_Barbour.pdf
26
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
10
Hanover Research | December 2012

Integrated formats: providing information and services in multiple formats to
enable students to choose the way in which they interact with the institution

Performance indicators: providing both the expectations and a measure of how well
the student is currently meeting each expectation29
IS YOUR DISTANCE PROGRAM TYPICAL?
Administrators always wonder how their program compares to those at other
institutions. Is it typical or consistent with national trends? Highly successful
individual programs do not always reflect these generalized characteristics variances often result from the culture of the institution and the role the distance
education program is expected to play.
For most of the survey participants, their online program:
1. Is the institution’s primary source for student enrollment growth.
2. Does not offer enough courses to meet student demand.
3. Enhances access to higher education, due to its increased flexibility and
convenience.
4. Includes a nearly equal number of traditional and nontraditional students.
5. Enrolls more female than males students (a 60-40 split).
6. Staff reports to the academic side of the institution, and specifically to the
dean or a higher ranked administrator.
7. Is under-staffed, working in cramped conditions, with an inadequate budget.
8. Offers approximately 160 online classes/class sections each semester.
9. Offers a growing percentage of Web-assisted and hybrid instruction.
10. Acts as a change-agent at the institution, prompting increased faculty training
and professional development, rethinking teaching pedagogy, and providing a
catalyst for integrating technology into instruction.
11. Often leads the institution in dealing with issues of innovative course design,
rigor, course quality, and keeping up with new insights as to how students
learn.
12. Struggles to attain understanding, acceptance, and support from campus
leaders, who often lack direct experience with this method of teaching and
learning, and feel a generational disconnect.
13. Has little or no control over faculty recruitment, hiring, evaluation and
retention.
14. Is overwhelmed by, and lacks the staff necessary to comply with, state and
federal government regulations, and struggles to determine the best way to
respond in the face of these obstacles.
Source: ITC, “2011 Distance Education Survey Results,” p. 21.
29
Shea, “Serving Students Online,” Op. cit., p. 19.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
11
Hanover Research | December 2012
SECTION TWO : STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
After “exploding the myth” that suggested student affairs was out of touch with
technology,30 Guidry sought to explore the real gap in the literature: the student viewpoint.
Among the major sources for information on student views, Guidry (2008) cited the
following:

Pew Internet & American Life Project: broad perspective through regularlyrepeated surveys on “the role of the Internet in the lives and activities – civic, family,
work, and educational – of Americans”

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR): regularly-repeated surveys on
undergraduate students’ “ownership and use of electronic devices and their use of
technology in coursework”

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) of the Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI): “longitudinal study composed of a series of studies
conducted each year,” which recently (2007) has begun to include questions on
online social networking

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE): longitudinal study of students, with
“only a handful of questions specifically related to technology”31
Additionally, Guidry pointed to the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service (CDS) and the joint effort
of the NASPA32 and Student Voice to conduct an annual Profile of Today’s College Student,
which contains a specific section on technology use.33
However, these sources are not without problems. The journal’s editor commented on
Guidry’s source recommendations, saying that they relied too much on national surveys. His
criticism is a methodological one: “Readers should always pay attention to methodological
issues in survey projects, and in particular, they should be aware of sampling procedures
and response rates. The methodology in some of these national projects is less [rigorous]
than desirable.”34 Guidry naturally disagrees, but his own reservations present additional
considerations: “The major strengths of the large surveys and projects – rigor and
consistency (to enable comparisons between institutions) – make them somewhat inflexible
and slow to change.”35
An additional challenge is the scope of most research on student perspectives. Reviews of
Ana M. Martínez-Alemán and Katherine Lynk Wartman’s Online Social Networking on
30
Guidry, “Exploding a Myth,” Op. cit.
Guidry, K.A. “Sources for Understanding Undergraduate Students’ Use of Technology.” Student Affairs Online 9, no.
3 (Winter 2008): http://studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Winter_2008/UndergraduateStudentUseofTechnology.html
32
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, a professional organization for student affairs professionals.
33
Guidry, “Sources for Understanding,” Op. cit.
34
It is unclear which methodology in particular raised Gary Malaney’s caution. Malaney, G.D. “Editor’s Note.” Student
Affairs Online 9, no. 3 (Winter 2008): http://studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Winter_2008/index.html
35
Guidry, “Sources for Understanding,” Op. cit.
31
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
12
Hanover Research | December 2012
Campus: Understanding What Matters in Student Culture (2009) suggest that there is an
overwhelming pre-occupation in the literature with understanding how students interact
with technology in the classroom, virtual or not, and how to adapt or harness new
technologies for the modern lecture.36 Other authors in the field make this trend clear, with
useful studies that focus on the student’s classroom experience.37
This trend is visible in the popular press, as well. For example, there was an article in the
Chronicle of Higher Education discussing an online course at the University of Texas at
Arlington on “Exercise and Weight Management,” which taught students both the academic
principles behind the topic and how to harness online tools and services to help manage
their health. It seems to be an extension of a common traditional-format service into the
online sphere.38 Another article highlighted the uses of Twitter to facilitate classroom
discussions and learning. The author experimented with Twitter’s abilities to create “realtime discussion,” a “community,” and bridged engagement among the online and oncampus students in a course.39 While these findings can be adapted to the student affairs
sector, they do not present a holistic picture of student technology perspectives.
36
Dianne Timm was highly critical of the book because it failed to cite CIRP and NASPA national surveys on college
student technology use, whose limitations are discussed in the introduction to this section. George McClellan
suggests that many of the authors’ findings can be adapted for the student affairs setting, in spite of limitations of
the authors’ own sample of “relatively elite residential campus communities.” See [1] Timm, D.M. Review of
Martínez, A.M., and Wartman, K.L. Online Social Networking on Campus: Understanding What Matters in Student
Culture. In Review of Higher Education 33, no. 2 (Winter 2010): 301-303. [2] McClellan, G.S. Review of Martínez,
A.M., and Wartman, K.L. Online Social Networking on Campus: Understanding What Matters in Student Culture. In
Journal of College Student Development 50, no. 4 (July/August 2009): 468-469.
37
These studies seem to divide into those focused on faculty engagement and those focused on student engagement.
It has been demonstrated, for example, that faculty are more likely to use technologies in the classroom or in
online settings if they perceive that it has positive effects on learning and teaching, especially given that faculty
perceive a greater time and effort investment involved for online as opposed to traditional class sessions. Other
studies have shown similar influences on student engagement, which is influenced by comfort and familiarity with
the learning technologies, personal skills and motivation, and technical issues. For a sample of such studies, see
[1] Lassitter, S.A. “Establishing a Relationship Between Virtual Instructor and Student in the Online Classroom.”
Distance Learning 6, no. 1 (2009): 53-57. Accessed through ProQuest. [2] Tabata, L.N., and Johnsrud, L.K. “The
Impact of Faculty Attitudes Toward Technology, Distance Education, and Innovation.” Research in Higher
Education 49 (2008): 625-646. Accessed through ProQuest. [3] Gibson, S.G., Harris, M.L., and Colaric, S.M.
“Technology Acceptance in an Academic Context: Faculty Acceptance of Online Education.” Journal of Education
for Business 83, no. 6 (July/August 2008): 355-359. Accessed through ProQuest. [4] Tallent-Runnels, M.K. et. al.
“How to Teach Online: What the Research Says.” Distance Learning 2, no. 1 (2005): 21-27. Accessed through
ProQuest. [5] Muilenburg, L.Y., and Berge, Z.L. “Student Barriers to Online Learning: A factor analytic study.”
Distance Education 26, no. 1 (May 2005): 29-48. Accessed through ProQuest. [6] Reisetter, M., and Boris, G.
“What Works: Student Perceptions of Effective Elements in Online Learning.” Quarterly Review of Distance
Education 5, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 277-291, 309. Accessed through ProQuest. [7] Burnett, K., Bonnici, L.J., Miksa,
S.D., and Kim, J. “Frequency, Intensity and Topicality in Online Learning: An Exploration of the Interaction
Dimensions that Contribute to Student Satisfaction in Online Learning.” Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science 48, no.1 (Winter 2007): 21-35. Accessed through ProQuest. [8] Krentler, K. “Does Technology
Enhance Actual Student Learning? The Case of Online Discussion Boards.” Journal of Education for Business 80,
no. 6 (July/August 2005): 316-321. Accessed through ProQuest.
38
Lipka, S. “On Campus and Online, Students Lose Weight for Credit.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. September
12, 2010. http://chronicle.com/article/On-CampusOnline-Students/124357/
39
Billiot, T. “In One Online Class, Twitter Brings Students Together.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. September 29,
2011. http://chronicle.com/article/In-One-Online-Class-Twitter/129120/
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
13
Hanover Research | December 2012
What these challenges suggest is that there is (still) no rigorous research-based focus on
understanding the student perspective relative to technology and its application in
educational settings, though there are a few exceptions. Recognizing such limitations, this
section addresses the main research question for this report: How could virtual students
experience campus traditions?
STUDENT TECHNOLOGY USE
Earlier work on student technology use has limited application for today, due to the
expansion of the digital market and related technology. However, certain sociological
findings may still be useful to help contextualize current data. The emerging theories of
distance education emphasized independence and autonomy, the industrialization of
teaching, and interaction and communication. Additionally there emerged a theory of
equivalency, which “provides a framework for design and production of instructional
experience for local and distant learners that need not be the same.”40
LEARNER TYPE, GENDER, ETHNICITY, AND UNCONTROLLABLE FACTORS
The idea of equivalency has driven researchers to understand, in particular, how the
“classroom” experience might be different for online learners – and thus how it can be
made equivalent. One aspect of this has involved understanding types of online learners.
Clara Rabe-Hemp, Susan Woollen, and Gail Sears Humiston (2009) demonstrated that
students learn differently online than in a lecture hall. 41 Selma Vonderwell and Sajit
Zacharaiah (2005) highlighted James Taylor’s (2002) study of student participation patterns
in online learning related to traditional on-campus courses.42 As summarized by Vonderwell
and Zacharaiah, Taylor identified three categories of online learning participant:
He named the three groups he found: workers, proactive participation group;
lurkers, peripheral participation group; and shirkers, parsimonious participation
group. Workers participated actively in the discussions and visited the class site
regularly whereas lurkers participated occasionally, but mostly in a ‘read-only
mode.’ Shirkers performed the minimum required with fewer postings and visits to
the class site.43
Taylor noted that there was little difference in student achievement between the workers
and lurkers, suggesting that “peripheral participation is indeed efficacious.” Shirkers, on the
other hand, often did not complete the course assessment; of those shirkers who did
40
Simonson, M. “Equivalency theory and distance education.” Tech Trends 43, no. 5 (DATE): 8.
Rabe-Hemp, C., Woollen, S., and Sears Humiston, G. “A Comparative Analysis of Student Engagement, Learning, and
Satisfaction in Lecture Hall and Online Learning Settings.” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10, no. 2
(2009): 207-218.
42
The original source can be found at Taylor, J.C. “Teaching and Learning Online: The Workers, The Lurkers, and The
Shirkers.” Paper presented at the 2002 Conference on Research in Distance & Adult Learning in Asia. Accessed
October 11, 2012. http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/CRIDAL/cridala2002/speeches/taylor.pdf
43
Vonderwell, S., and Zachariah, S. “Factors that Influence Participation in Online Learning.” Journal of Research on
Technology in Education 38, no. 2 (Winter 2005): 213. Accessed through ProQuest.
41
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
14
Hanover Research | December 2012
complete the assessment, the average GPA was approximately one point lower than the
other groups’ averages.44
In their own work, Vanderwell and Zachariah closely examined two sections of an online
graduate course in which there were three graded and three ungraded discussions. In
graded discussions, selected students performed specific roles as facilitator, critical
reflector, or summarizer. Participation was analyzed for its content and purpose, rather
than just its volume or quantity. In particular, the researchers noted that students with
specific roles participated more often and more meaningfully. In some ways, they were
influenced by the impact that non-participation would have on their grades. But several
students also noted that having a specific role improved their comprehension and retention
of information being discussed. 45 Thus, additionally, student participation in online
discussions can be influenced by the interface and task assigned.
Not all factors influencing student technology use
may be controlled by the providing institution.
Not all online learners are alike,
Guidry (2009) explored “the Digital Divide and the
but their needs do differ from the
participation gap” as he continued to examine
traditional on-campus student’s.
student perspectives in online student affairs. This
review of literature focused on the underlying
factors affecting a person’s skill with and use of modern technologies, such as socioeconomic status or a culture of oral and visual, rather than written, traditions.46 Results of
the 2007 CIRP survey demonstrated a greater tendency among female freshmen to spend
time on online social networking sites than male freshmen, as well as a greater overall
average time spent on OSN sites than male freshmen. There were few differences by
ethnicity, although their study found slightly higher average times on OSN sites among
African-American freshmen than peers of other races.47
OUTCOMES OF TECHNOLOGY USE: EXPECTATIONS AND REALITIES
It is important to recognize that use of technologies does not indicate that students are
developing relationships and affiliations through these media. Holley and Taylor (2009)
examined socialization within the context of an online baccalaureate nursing program,
observed through coded participation in online discussion forums.48 Their central argument
critiqued our foundational understanding of how students learn online compared to in a
traditional setting: “The limited applicability of the traditional undergraduate theoretical
44
Taylor, “Teaching and Learning Online,” Op. cit., p. 9.
Vonderwell and Zachariah, “Factors that Influence Participation,” Op. cit., pp. 221-222.
46
Guidry, K.A. “The Digital Divide and the Participation Gap: Challenges to Innovation.” Student Affairs Online 10, no.
2 (Summer 2009): http://studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Summer_2009/DigitalDivide.html
47
Higher Education Research Institute. “College Freshmen and Online Social Networking Sites.” HERI Research Brief.
September 2007. http://heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/briefs/brief-091107-SocialNetworking.pdf
48
This was an alternate research question investigated in the same RN-to-BSN online program as addressed in Taylor
and Holley, “Providing Academic and Support Services,” Op. cit. See [1] Holley, K.A., and Taylor, B.J.
“Undergraduate Student Socialization and Learning in an Online Professional Curriculum.” Innovation in Higher
Education 33 (2009): 257-269.
45
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
15
Hanover Research | December 2012
framework to the student population represented in online programs is apparent not only
due to the age, employment status, and demographics of the participants, but also as a
result of the program format.”49
Additionally, it is important to recognize that students may use technologies differently in
educational settings than in non-academic settings. Certain technologies may not be easily
implemented in education. Wheeler and Lambert-Heggs (2009) sought to demonstrate the
utility of blogs as a communication medium for students and mentors. The experimental
set-up focused on six students and their mentors. Three pairs used traditional mentoring
plus a log (the control), and three used blogs to communicate (the experiment). The authors
initially argue from the literature that blogging offers an opportunity for reflexivity,
permanency, and immediacy. However, their results show surprising disparity in the
experiences of students in both groups. In fact, traditional log-keeping efforts were
maintained more consistently than were blogs. Many students, regardless of dedication to
the medium used, emphasized that face-to-face interactions were more personal and
ultimately more helpful than solely an electronic dialogue.50 What this suggests is not
necessarily that mentoring cannot take place through digital media, rather, that perhaps (in
spite of the authors’ enthusiasm and optimism) blogs are not necessarily an appropriate
substitute for more personal communication forms.
J. Patrick Biddix (2010) examined the use of information and communication technologies,
including computers, cell phones, text messaging, and social networking, in campus
activism. He found that over the period 2000-2008, using a sample of 22 student leaders
from eight campuses, technology use increased significantly, with three themes of
implications: “(a) relational learning in contemporary campus activism, (b) opportunities to
participate and meaningfully contribute, and (c) learning and commitment through
communities of practice.”51 Still, “leaders found establishing a personal connection was the
most effective means of building and keeping support.” 52 The research thus suggests that
students use media to connect with known persons in meaningful ways, both
professionally and socially.
A study by Frank Boyle, Jinhee Kwon, Catherine Ross, and Ormond Simpson (2010)
suggested that students can mentor their peers in online learning environments to some
degree of success. Cases from the United Kingdom, Korea, and New Zealand showed what
the authors felt to be significant retention gains, up to 20 percent.53 In a sense, Boyle and
colleagues’ examples simply formalized what students have already done: use online
49
Holley and Taylor, “Undergraduate Student Socialization,” Op. cit., p. 259.
Wheeler, S., and Lambert-Heggs, W. “Connecting Distance Learners and their Mentors Using Blogs: The MEntorBlog
Project.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 323-331, 400-401.
51
Biddix, J.P. “Technology Uses in Campus Activism from 2000 to 2008: Implications for Civic Learning.” Journal of
College Student Development 51, no. 6 (November/December 2010): 688. Accessed through ProQuest.
52
Ibid., p. 691.
53
Boyle, F., Kwon, J., Ross, C., and Simpson, O. “Student-student mentoring for retention and engagement in distance
education.” Open Learning 25, no. 2 (2010): 115-130.
http://www.elcentrocollege.edu/Campus_Info/TitleV/docs/Student%20Mentoring%20for%20the%20Retention%
20of%20Online%20Students.pdf
50
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
16
Hanover Research | December 2012
networking to exchange knowledge and ideas about the content being studied. Forcing
them to engage in formalized communities may not generate the buy-in expected, as
students will find the connections “superfluous and inconvenient.”54
ADAPTING SERVICES TO STUDENT DEMANDS
Meeting student demands will continue to be a challenge for administrators. As stated in
Section One, technology is no longer optional among higher education student affairs
offices. Not only do administrators see it as necessary, but students themselves “believe
[technology] improves their learning.”55 In a national study focusing on two-year colleges
carried out by the Lone Star College System, “78 percent of college students reported that
their grades and learning experience are improved
when technology is effectively and consistently
Online students want their
implemented on their campus.” 56 However, as one
interactions
to be meaningful,
Chronicle article relays, students’ demands for
facilitated through
educational technology are often quite personal and
appropriate media, and
personalized. One student might want only to be
related
to specific educational
contacted by text messages or blasts received on her
and professional goals.
cell phone, while another might want only to be
57
contacted by official e-mails.
It will also be difficult but important to distinguish the needs of the on-campus student who
uses online services from the needs of the online learner. Leslie A. Dare, Lisa P. Zapata, and
Amanda G. Thomas (2005) argued that, in the triangle of technology, distance education,
and student affairs, the weakest relationship was between technology and student affairs.
To help address this weakness, they surveyed “2,077 students – the entire distance learning
population at NC State University – [… and] a total of 6,190 on-campus students,” for a total
respondent sample of 778 distance learners and 1,962 traditional (on-campus) learners.58
Results indicated that the two groups did not differ much in satisfaction, but did differ in the
programs and services they found most useful:
…distance learners were more concerned with administrative services that are
critical to their success, such as registration and records, advising, and the
libraries. Perhaps they would place a higher value on other services and programs
that are currently available to them if they were aware of these opportunities. […]
54
LaPointe, L., and Reisetter, M. “Belonging Online: Students’ Perceptions of the Value and Efficacy of an Online
Learning Community.” International Journal on eLearning 7, no. 4 (2008): 641-665. Accessed through ProQuest.
55
Guess, A. “Students’ ‘Evolving’ Use of Technology.” Inside Higher Ed. September 17, 2007.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/17/it
56
As reported in Namahoe, K. “New Study Reveals Student Perspective on Technology Use in Higher Education.”
Campus Technology. October 3, 2011. http://campustechnology.com/articles/2011/10/03/new-study-revealsstudent-perspective-on-technology-use-in-higher-education.aspx
57
Mangan, K. “As Students Scatter Online, Colleges Try To Keep Up.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. September
10, 2012. http://chronicle.com/article/Digitally-Savvy-Students-Play/134224/
58
Dare, L.A., Zapata, L.P., and Thomas, A.G. “Assessing the Needs of Distance Learners: A Student Affairs Perspective.”
New Directions for Student Services no. 112 (Winter 2005): 43.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
17
Hanover Research | December 2012
Results of the survey also indicated that distance learners report they would likely
use services and programs that are currently not at their disposal.59
Specifically, the researchers suggested from student responses that student affairs offices
provide leadership programs and support for marginalized groups for distance learners.
Ultimately, they argue that “the current profile of distance learners [… which] suggests that
they desire only minimal transactional services” is not completely accurate.60
Barrett Taylor and Karri Holley (2009) interviewed 19 students in an online RN-to-BSN
program and gathered additional data throughout the course, paying particular interest in
the implications for student affairs. Largely, they found that students in online programs felt
the onus was on them to get involved in socialization with peers and faculty, leaving many
to feel isolated or out of touch. What is more, it was on them to figure out how to learn in
an online setting, something they felt much less comfortable and confident in doing. The
researchers conclude that there was “a strong desire for academic support,” especially
related to the fostering of “virtual relationships between students, faculty, and program
staff.”61 Such collaborations would be particularly helpful, the students suggested, in “the
crafting of programs of study, strategies for managing academic work, and suggestions for
balancing their education, professional, and personal roles.”62 Online students are less
concerned with socialization opportunities than with identifying successful learning
strategies that help them complete the program in a timely and efficient manner.
Additionally, as demonstrated by the Lone Star report (2011), students “do not simply want
more technology – they want the right technology. Students want systems and applications
that serve their needs, support learning, and work properly.”63 The 2012 ECAR study of
undergraduate students and information technology observed that “technology training and
skill development for students is more important than new, more or ‘better’ technology.”64
In some ways, these findings suggest that institutions must take the time to assess what
their students need and to develop sound, sustainable solutions for the long-term.
59
Dare, Zapata, and Thomas, “Assessing the Needs of Distance Learners,” Op. cit., pp. 48-49.
Ibid., p. 49.
61
Taylor, B., and Holley, K. “Providing Academic and Support Services to Students Enrolled in Online Degree
Programs.” College Student Affairs Journal 28, no. 1 (2009): 97. Accessed through ProQuest.
62
Ibid., 98-99.
63
Namahoe, “New Study Reveals Student Perspective,” Op cit.
64
Educause Center for Applied Research. “ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology,
2012.” p. 5. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf
60
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
18
Hanover Research | December 2012
SECTION III: CATALOG OF PEER SERVICES
One the one hand, the literature suggests that student affairs offices renew their focus on
providing services that empower online students to succeed in the online classroom.
Students do not seem interested in socializing with online peers or experiencing “campus
traditions.” However, as one study suggested, it is also unclear that students would be
inclined to acknowledge the “little things” like student affairs services in their retention or
affiliation. Therefore, as a final component of this report, we offer a brief catalog of student
affairs services at peer competitor institutions.
PEER SELECTION METHODOLOGY
We referred to the U.S. News & World Report ranking of “Top Online Bachelor’s Programs”
in the category of Student Services and Technology.65 Top Institutions include:













Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Ball State University, Muncie, IN
Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN
Florida International University, Miami, FL
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX
Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX
Troy University, Troy, AL
University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY
We are also exploring the leading for-profit online educators, based on total enrollment
figures gathered from the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). These include:66






Ashford University
Capella University
Colorado Technical University
DeVry University
Full Sail University
Kaplan University
65
U.S. News & World Report. “Student Services and Technology: Top Online Bachelor’s Programs Rankings.” 2012
(accessed September 6, 2012). http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/bachelors-student-servicestechnology-rankings
66
National Center for Education Statistics. “IPEDS Data Center.” Accessed September 6, 2012.
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
19
Hanover Research | December 2012


University of Phoenix
Walden University
CATALOG OF PEER SERVICES
Below are brief contextual summaries of each of the peers. In these paragraphs we focus on
providing a broad narrative assessment of the institution’s online student services, with an
eye toward accessibility and unique offerings or presentation. These serve to complement
the overall Catalog of Peer Services for Online Students (Figure 1). Because of the size of the
sample (n=21), the focus in these components of the report rests on cataloguing the
services and administrative approaches, rather than analyzing them in detail.
Additionally, in both the narratives and the Catalog we focus on services that target online
learners rather than a broader student population. This second restriction proved difficult to
manage. In some cases the online students were clearly being directed away from
information and services specifically for their experience. However, in others, adaptations
or special information for online learners within these “external” sites were highlighted. We
chose to use a marking system that would distinguish among these options: those that have
no service clearly offered (blank), those that have an index and direct students to external
generic sites (o’s), and those that have services specifically for online students (x’s). Note
that some institutions may have more services for online learners, but we limited our
searches to the online student web-pages due to time constraints.
Additional research into these peer institutions should consider these institutions’ online
learning structures and management, course offerings, and mission and values statements
to help account for the diversity of opportunities and presentations in online student affairs.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
20
Hanover Research | December 2012
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
o
o
o
x
o
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
o
x
o
x
x
o
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
WALDEN
x
x
o
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
x
x
x
U. PHOENIX
x
o
x
x
o
o
o
x
x
x
KAPLAN
x
x
x
o
x
o
x
x
x
o
x
FULL SAIL
x
x
o
DEVRY
o
x
x
x
x
x
o
CTU
x
x
o
o
CAPELLA
x
x
x
ASHFORD
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
o
WKU
x
x
o
o
x
x
WSU
x
o
o
x
x
UND
o
o
o
o
x
x
U. BRIDGEPORT
x
x
x
x
TROY
x
o
o
SFA STATE
x
x
x
SHSU
o
x
x
REGENT
FIU
x
x
x
BSU
ETSU
CATEGORY
Placement
Distinct online space for online learners
Distinct services for online learners
Distinct staff contacts for online learners
Student Affairs
Campus store/bookstore
Career counseling/services
Career/job search tools
Financial aid/tuition counseling
General advising
Library guides and support
Online tutoring
Peer-to-peer mentoring
Technical support
Campus Connections
Direct chat with faculty/staff
Social media
News/events for online learners
Special Information
Help/orientation for online learning
Disabilities resources
Veterans/military affairs
ASU
INSTITUTION
CMU
Figure 1. Catalog of Peer Services for Online Students
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
o
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
x
x
x
Source: Institutional websites (see Appendix). Note: Blank indicates that online students are not specifically directed to a given category within the online space; “o”
indicates that online students are directed to a general service external to the online space; “x” indicates that online students are offered a specific tailored service in the
online space.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
21
Hanover Research | December 2012
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT ONLINE PROGRAM RANKING PEERS
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
ASU Online seems to operate as a distinct entity from its parent institution, Arizona State
University. It is served by its own Executive Vice Provost, COO, and several other senior
management staff persons. In particular, it features a five-person Student Services staff,
among them a(n)





Director of Student Services,
Academic Program Onboarding [Specialist],
Military Specialist,
Financial Aid Counselor, Student Financial Assistance [Specialist],67 and
Program Coordinator.68
Its website stands out for its direct focus on online-only students, with little mention of the
general or on-campus population. Among the featured “Student Resources” are Student
Services, Student Perks, the ASU Online Community, a Calendar of Events, Technical
Support, and FAQs. All pertain specifically and exclusively to students pursuing coursework
through ASU Online in an online environment. This makes the website very easy to navigate,
because there is no doubt that the information presented applies to an online learner.
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
While there is an “Online, Distance, and Continuing Education” tab which focuses on online
programs and courses, Ball State does not seem to distinguish services for online students
from those for the general on-campus population. This means all students, regardless of
their learning setting, are (for example) advised by the same staff. The only distinct
information the website provides for online learners is an introduction to the methods of
delivery available, and information on the technology needed to complete online
coursework with the university. Additionally, while student affairs options are often offered
online, they are not tailored to the online learner, but rather to a hybrid audience.69
The distinction between on-campus and online learners may be difficult for the institution
to make, as the university offers online-only programs, independent learning for on-campus
students, web conferencing, and live off-site distance learning options. There are only two
distinct personnel who serve the “independent learning” community exclusively: a Director,
and a Program Coordinator.70
67
This is one staff person’s title – they are not two separate positions in ASU Online.
ASU Online. “Staff.” 2010 (accessed October 17, 2012). http://asuonline.asu.edu/about-us/staff
69
Ball State University. “Services for Current Students.” 2012. http://cms.bsu.edu/Gateways/CurrentStudents
70
Ball State University. “Independent Learning Program.” 2012.
http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/Distance/ContactUs/StaffDirectory/ILP.aspx
68
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
22
Hanover Research | December 2012
CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
Online learning is subsumed in CMU’s Global Campus division, which operates the many
distance education centers of the parent university in U.S. and international locations, with
an emphasis on military audiences.71 Among its most interesting offerings are specific tools
and guides that help students self-assess their preparedness for the online learning
environment, including an Online Learning Assessment and a guide on the characteristics of
an online learner. Other guides help students prepare themselves for the communication
and learning practices best suited to online learning.72
Additionally, CMU Online students can network and exchange ideas with experienced peers
through the Online Ally program.73 The Online Ally program seems particularly aligned with
recommendations from the literature to provide an optional opportunity for students to
exchange pertinent program information with each other as a means of developing
affiliation with the institution.
EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
Online learning is served through ETSU’s Office of eLearning. ETSU features an “Online
Student Success Coordinator,” in addition to a Director and an Internet Program Support
Coordinator.74 There are also personal counseling, career counseling, tutoring, and advising
services (among others) that provide pathways for student connection to the university.
This institution stands out by the number of distinct counseling, advising, and mentorship
opportunities made available to online learners, at least based on the ETSU Services page of
the Office of eLearning site. In many cases in this online student services index, the
accompanying explanation highlights specific offerings or alternatives for online students.
However, it is unclear how these services are differentiated for online and on-campus
learners when the link directs students to general institutional sites outside of the Office of
eLearning.75
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Interestingly, FIU Online, the online branch of Florida International University, creates a
welcoming and accessible space for online students, but it is not clear that they offer
71
Central Michigan University’s Global Campus. “Locations for CMU Global Campus.” Accessed October 17, 2012.
http://global.cmich.edu/locations/
72
[1] Central Michigan University’s Global Campus. “Are You Ready for Online Learning?” 2012.
http://global.cmich.edu/cmuonline/assessment/ [2] ―. “Characteristics of an Online Student.” 2012.
http://global.cmich.edu/CMUOnline/about/characteristics.aspx [3] ―. “Netiquette: A Guide to Successful
Communication in the Online Classroom.” October 2012. http://global.cmich.edu/CMUOnline/about/NetiquetteTips.pdf
73
Central Michigan University. “Do you need an Online Ally?” Accessed October 17, 2012.
http://global.cmich.edu/CMUOnline/about/onlineAlly.pdf
74
East Tennessee State University Office of eLearning. “Contact Us.” 2012.
http://www.etsu.edu/onlinehelp/contactus.aspx
75
East Tennessee State University Office of eLearning. “ETSU Services.” 2012.
http://www.etsu.edu/onlinehelp/student_help/services.aspx
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
23
Hanover Research | December 2012
specific tailored support services to online students. There is a clear focus on technology
issues and providing technical support for online learners. However, there is no mention of
academic advising, tutoring, financial services, or library services (for example) in the online
learner sphere of FIU’s website. The student “Support Center” services are hidden by
proprietary log-in information, but available commentary for Future Students suggests they
are referred to the relevant general campus office or department.
REGENT UNIVERSITY
Regent’s online learning site is fairly lean, although it emphasizes that Regent is “recognized
as a Top 20 in Online Education by U.S. News & World Report and ranked second the nation
for online schools by OEDb Online Rankings 2009.”76 Based on the “Course Test Drive” video
and experience, it seems like the internal contents are fairly streamlined and centralized for
students. This may make the experience easier to navigate, because all the required
materials and help aides are in one location within the online “classroom.”77
SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY
An important issue that each institution engaged in online learning must grapple with is the
financial aspect. Sam Houston, like several other online education providers, charges more
for students who take online courses: a $101 additional course fee per credit hour, in
addition to standard pricing. However, “the student center, medical, and recreational sports
fee are waived if only online courses are taken and the distance learning fee is charged per
credit hour.”78 This implies that these on-campus services are not available to online-only
students, but it is unclear if there are replacements or substitutions that allow online-only
students to take advantage of these “college experience” offerings in some other way. The
student services for online students are administered through Distance education &
Learning Technologies for Academics (DELTA), “a full-service Instructional Technology
support department on the campus of Sam Houston State University that supports the
educational technology needs of SHSU faculty and is the home of SHSU Online, the vehicle
for distance education at the University.”79 However, many of the links direct students to
external, general-campus sites.
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY
SFA’s online program does provide a good resource for online students, although in many
cases its services direct online learners to external, general-campus sites. The focus, as with
many of these online providers, seems to be on providing technical support information and
information about how to learn in and access the online “classroom.”
76
Regent University. “Online Learning.”” 2012. http://www.regent.edu/academics/online/
Regent University. “Course Test Drive.” 2012. http://www.regent.edu/academics/online/testdrive.cfm
78
Sam Houston State University Online. “Tuition & Fees.” 2012. http://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/tuition.html
79
Sam Houston State University Online. “For Students.” 2012. http://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/students.html
77
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
24
Hanover Research | December 2012
TROY UNIVERSITY
The online learning program of Troy University is operated through eTroy, clearly
distinguishing between online and on-campus learners. Programs are available for high
schoolers and transfer students with an associate’s degree in addition to general enrollment
students. The institution offers tailored “Adaptive Needs” services to “provide assistance
and accommodations to students with documented disabilities that may impede their
academic progress.” These modifications for the online learner are not complex: students
simply mail the complete packet of appropriate forms to one of two staff persons
(depending on the submitting student’s last name). Additionally, they are given a hierarchy
of steps to submit grievances if the disability is not being accommodated appropriately in a
particular course.80 Still, having these steps identified for the online learner makes it clear
that students with disabilities can be served through eTroy.
UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT
One service that seems to stand out at U. Bridgeport is its library service: “Our innovative
Σureka! Digital Library resides in the center of our virtual University community . . .
providing student access to full text electronic collections, the online catalog, web based
tutorials and real time research assistance.”81 Access to Σureka! is hidden by proprietary login to the myUB University Portal, however, the institution is careful to distinguish specific
library services tailored to online students within the online learning space.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA
Online learning is administered through Online & Distance Education (ODE) as part of the
Office of Extended Learning. The ODE also operates UND’s distance and correspondence
courses, including extension campuses.82 Thus it seems to be a distinct, if not separate,
entity from its parent institution, the University of North Dakota. However, as with several
other peers profiled in this report, the focus of its tailored information for online students
focuses nearly exclusively on the technology requirements and support they will need to be
successful in (and access) the online “classroom.” There are additional guides for “using the
library” and “order[ing] your textbooks.”83
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
Online learning is offered through WSU’s Global Campus, which is based on “five pillars” of
services: WSU Online Degrees, Global Connections, eLearning Services, Digital Academy, and
Conference Management.84 Note that eLearning Services are not the same as online student
80
Troy University. “eTroy: Adaptive Needs.” 2012. http://trojan.troy.edu/etroy/studentservices/adaptiveneeds.html
University of Bridgeport. “Magnus Wahlstrom Library.” 2012. http://www.bridgeport.edu/academics/library
82
The University of North Dakota Online & Distance Education. “About Online & Distance Education.” 2012.
http://distance.und.edu/aboutode/
83
The University of North Dakota Online & Distance Education. “Current Student Information.” 2012.
http://distance.und.edu/currentstudent/degree/
84
Washington State University Global Campus. “Home.” 2012. http://globalcampus.wsu.edu/
81
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
25
Hanover Research | December 2012
services; they are services to help educators develop and teach online courses.85 Still, WSU
Online offers an impressive range of tailored services to the online student. There is a “New
Student Center” that centralizes information on registration, exams, tuition and fees, and
other information specifically for the online learner.86 In particular, we could highlight the
advising system that is specifically tailored to online learners within the WSU Online space –
not redirected to the general-campus advising center. To ensure students take advantage of
their telephone or email meetings with advisors, “an advising hold is placed on every
undergraduate student’s registration each semester.”87
WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
WKU offers online learning and independent learning through the Office of Distance
Learning, a Division of Extended Learning and Outreach (DELO). 88 One of the more
interesting offerings of WKU Online is its collection of “Top Tools for Online Learners,”
providing students ideas on free or low-cost software and programs to help them with
different aspects of note-taking, research, and studying. These tools are organized into the
following categories: collaboration, mind-mapping, note taking, staying organized, research,
and tools for classwork.89
While many institutions offer some type of informative online handouts, WKU stands out
for its focus on specific academic skills, and the multiple formats in which its suggestions are
available to online learners. This aligns well with key findings from the literature review to
provide integrated, customized, and customizable program-related information.
NCES ONLINE FOR-PROFIT PEERS
ASHFORD UNIVERSITY
While Ashford University offers a traditional campus experience and on-campus degrees, its
focus is on its extensive online programming at the associate, bachelor, and master levels;
only bachelor’s degrees are offered on campus. This inversion of priorities, compared to the
U.S. News & World Report Ranking peers, makes it difficult to understand when online
students are excluded from (rather than included in) certain campus offerings. For example,
it is unclear if the Travel Studies opportunities are intended for on-campus or online
students (or both). These opportunities provide short, focused learning experiences in
specific locations: one in Hannibal, Missouri, focusing on Mark Twain, and one in Athens and
Rome focusing on Western civilization.90 In general, it seems that all services target the
online learner, except for obvious exceptions such as sports teams or other activities that
must take place on a physical, centralized campus.
85
Washington State University Global Campus. “eLearning Services.” 2012. http://teach.wsu.edu/
Washington State University Global Campus. “New Students.” 2012.
http://online.wsu.edu/currentStudent/studentCenter/Default.aspx
87
Washington State University Global Campus. “Advising.” 2012.
http://online.wsu.edu/currentStudent/advising/aboutAdvising.aspx
88
Western Kentucky University. “Distance Learning.” 2012. http://www.wku.edu/dl/
89
Western Kentucky University. “Top Tools for Online Learners.” 2012. http://www.wku.edu/online/src/tools.php
90
Ashford University. “Travel Studies.” 2012. http://www.ashford.edu/student_services/travel_studies.htm
86
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
26
Hanover Research | December 2012
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY
Capella is a solely online institution, thus all of its services target online learners. One of the
more unique offerings it highlights is the Capella University Alumni Center, which “offers
networking opportunities, professional employment information, developmental grants,
discounted courses, and more.”91 Importantly, this network seeks to offer both targeted
services for individual alumni as well as opportunities for alumni to gather in a perhaps
more traditional way, through regional events and volunteer opportunities. In this way
former Capella students can connect with their peers, who they might not have met in
person but will likely have interacted with online throughout their studies.92
COLORADO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
CTU is described as “a network of technological campuses designed to provide higher
education in a style that can complement the world you live in, instead of taking you away
from it.” Thus its focus is online delivery but it does offer “distinct” campuses in western
U.S. states.93 Interestingly, one of the opportunities CTU touts is its “CTU Success Center,” a
specific campus location designed for online students as a “place to meet up, hang out,
network and get in-person support.”94 It hosts events, tutoring, and admissions counseling
for interested non-students throughout the year during regular business hours plus
Saturday hours.
DEVRY UNIVERSITY
DeVry offers both on-campus and online degree programs, seeming to favor neither one
over the other. However, it seems that much of DeVry’s service offerings are hidden behind
a proprietary log-in for the Student Services Support page.95
FULL SAIL UNIVERSITY
Full Sail is another online for-profit institution that offers both campus and online
programming, and seems to hold information on its student services proprietary. The focus
of the public website is to provide information on admissions, financial aid, and select
benefits of Full Sail for alumni. There is also a “Test Drive” option to allow applicants a
chance to see the online “classroom” before entering a program.96 However, the Test Drive
videos and content do not identify specific student services – they focus on the online
“classroom.”
91
Capella University. “Distance Learning Resources.” 2012.
http://www.capella.edu/online_learning/support_services.aspx
92
Capella University. “Welcome Alumni iGuide.” 2012.
http://www.capella.edu/landing_pages/Welcome_Alumni/index.asp?linkID=163668&Refr=
93
Colorado Technical University. “About Colorado Technical University.” 2012. http://www.coloradotech.edu/AboutCTU
94
Colorado Technical University. “CTU Success Center.” 2012. http://www.coloradotech.edu/About-CTU/CTUSuccess-Center
95
DeVry University. “Student Services Support Login.” 2012.
https://dvuo.custhelp.com/app/utils/login_form/redirect/account%252Foverview
96
Full Sail University. “Test Drive.” 2012. http://online.fullsail.edu/test-drive
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
27
Hanover Research | December 2012
KAPLAN UNIVERSITY
Kaplan University offers an array of clubs and organizations for its students to join, including
the “first online chapter” of the Golden Key honor society.97 Other clubs include chapters of
national professional associations (e.g., the Association for Computing Machinery) or honor
societies or groups centered on a specific major or discipline.98
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX
One of the standout offerings of the University of Phoenix is the “Life Resource Center,” a
centralized services forum providing students with




Life and Career Coaching,
Financial Advice,
Daily Living resources, and
Counseling.99
Importantly, this service provides Phoenix’s online students with more traditional student
affairs services, including personal counseling and mentoring in areas of work-life-school
balance and consumer issues, and even “find[ing] child or elder care arrangements.”100
Another unique feature of the Phoenix online education is the “Graduation Team”
structure. This team consists of the student’s enrollment, finance, and academic advisors.
Together with the student the team helps a student plan his/her program experience.101
WALDEN UNIVERSITY
Walden is an online-only university, thus all of its student services pertain to online learners.
A clear “Support Services” tab identifies standard offerings such as personal advisors,
technical assistance, library and research support, support for fundamental skills, career
services, and disability services. 102 A unique aspect of Walden is its promotion of
residencies, practicum and internships, and other experiences that create a stronger peerto-peer learning network among students and faculty. Academic residencies are required for
doctoral and some master’s level students, with face-to-face and virtual experience options.
These residencies are designed, in general, to provide additional, personalized information
at key points in a student’s academic development, including a chance to:
97
Jill Rooney. “The Value of Extracurricular Activities for Online Students.” The Open Academic. October 4, 2011.
http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2011/10/04/extracurricular-activities-online-students/
98
See generally “Communities and Clubs.” Kaplan University. http://www.kaplanuniversity.edu/studentexperience/communities-clubs.aspx
99
University of Phoenix. “Life Resources Center.” 2012. http://www.phoenix.edu/students/how-itworks/student_experience/student_services/life-resource-center.html
100
Ibid.
101
University of Phoenix. “Graduation Team.” 2012. http://www.phoenix.edu/students/how-itworks/student_experience/graduation-teams.html
102
Walden University. “Support Services.” 2012. http://www.waldenu.edu/Support-Services.htm
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
28
Hanover Research | December 2012




103
Meet with faculty and staff members who can assist you with your writing and research
projects.
Discuss experiences and insights with students from a wide range of educational and cultural
backgrounds who share your interests.
Find additional support in developing your dissertation or doctoral study.
Prepare you for participation in professional communities of scholars.103
Walden University. “Academic Residencies.” 2012. http://www.waldenu.edu/Walden-Difference/38401.htm
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
29
Hanover Research | December 2012
APPENDIX
Bibliography of Institutional Websites for Catalog
INSTITUTION
Arizona
State
University
Ball State
University
Central
Michigan
University
East
Tennessee
State
University
Florida
Internatio
nal
University
Regent
University
Sam
Houston
State
University
Stephen F.
Austin
State
University
WEBSITES CONSULTED
http://asuonline.asu.edu/student-resources/student-services
http://asuonline.asu.edu/student-resources/asu-online-community
http://asuonline.asu.edu/student-resources/student-perks
http://asuonline.asu.edu/student-resources/events
http://asuonline.asu.edu/student-resources/technical-support
http://asuonline.asu.edu/what-it-costs/financial-aid
http://asuonline.asu.edu/how-it-works/learning-online-at-asu
http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/Distance/Academics/Technology.aspx
http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/Distance/Academics/Admissions/Delivery.aspx
http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/Distance/Academics/Admissions/Delivery/Onlin
eInternetStudy.aspx
http://cms.bsu.edu/Gateways/CurrentStudents
http://global.cmich.edu/CMUOnline/about/
http://global.cmich.edu/services/
http://global.cmich.edu/future/careerSolutions.aspx
http://global.cmich.edu/finances/
http://global.cmich.edu/services/ocls.aspx
http://www.etsu.edu/onlinehelp/default.aspx
http://www.etsu.edu/onlinehelp/student_help/default.aspx
http://www.etsu.edu/d2l/students.aspx
http://www.etsu.edu/onlinehelp/student_help/services.aspx
http://online.fiu.edu/supportservices
http://online.fiu.edu/supportservices/supportcenter
http://online.fiu.edu/futurestudents
http://online.fiu.edu/supportservices/advising
http://www.regent.edu/academics/online/
http://www.regent.edu/academics/online/resources.cfm
http://www.regent.edu/academics/online/foryou.cfm
http://www.regent.edu/admin/stusrv/student_dev/
http://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/students.html
http://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/begin.html
http://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/SHSUOnlineservices.html
http://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/tuition.html
http://www.sfasu.edu/sfaonline/
http://www.sfasu.edu/sfaonline/consider.asp
http://www.sfasu.edu/sfaonline/69.asp
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
30
Hanover Research | December 2012
INSTITUTION
Troy
University
University
of
Bridgeport
Univ. of N.
Dakota
Washingto
n State
University
Western
Kentucky
University
Ashford
University
Capella
University
Colorado
Technical
University
DeVry
University
Full Sail
University
Kaplan
University
University
of Phoenix
WEBSITES CONSULTED
http://trojan.troy.edu/etroy/index.html
http://trojan.troy.edu/etroy/orientation.html
http://trojan.troy.edu/globalcampus/library/
http://trojan.troy.edu/etroy/studentservices/
http://www.bridgeport.edu/academics/online/studentservices.aspx
http://www.bridgeport.edu/academics/online/support
http://www.bridgeport.edu/academics/library
http://distance.und.edu/aboutode/
http://distance.und.edu/currentstudent/degree/
http://online.wsu.edu/currentStudent/studentCenter/Default.aspx
http://online.wsu.edu/currentStudent/studentCenter/checklist.aspx
http://online.wsu.edu/currentStudent/supportTeam/studentServices.aspx
http://online.wsu.edu/currentStudent/supportTeam/tutoringOptions.aspx
http://www.wku.edu/online/about.php
http://www.wku.edu/online/src/
http://www.wku.edu/online/student-resources.php
http://www.ashford.edu/about.htm
http://www.ashford.edu/student_services.htm
http://www.ashford.edu/student_services/organizations.htm
http://www.ashford.edu/admissions/online_financial_services.htm
http://www.ashford.edu/admissions/facts.htm
http://www.capella.edu/onlinelearning.aspx
http://www.capella.edu/online_learning/support_services.aspx
http://www.capella.edu/military/military-index.aspx
http://www.capella.edu/tuition_financial_aid/tuition_financial_aid_index.aspx
http://www.coloradotech.edu/About-CTU/CTU-Success-Center
http://www.coloradotech.edu/Student-Life
http://www.coloradotech.edu/Military
http://www.coloradotech.edu/Student-Life/Career-Services
http://www.devry.edu/online-options/online-education.jsp
http://www.devry.edu/whydevry/current-students.jsp?iam=..%2Fwhydevry%2Fcurrent-students.jsp
http://www.devry.edu/online-options/online-degree-programs.jsp
http://www.devry.edu/online-options/college-online.jsp
http://online.fullsail.edu/about
http://online.fullsail.edu/about/faq
http://online.fullsail.edu/test-drive
http://www.kaplanuniversity.edu/student-experience/online-education.aspx
http://www.kaplanuniversity.edu/academic-support/disability-services-center.aspx
http://www.phoenix.edu/students/how-it-works/student_experience/student_services.html
http://www.phoenix.edu/students/how-it-works/student_experience/graduation-teams.html
http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/media-center/just-the-facts/library.html
http://www.phoenix.edu/students/how-it-works/student_experience/orientation-workshop.html
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
31
Hanover Research | December 2012
INSTITUTION
Walden
University
WEBSITES CONSULTED
http://www.waldenu.edu/Support-Services.htm
http://www.waldenu.edu/Walden-Difference/38423.htm
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
32
Hanover Research | December 2012
PROJECT EVALUATION FORM
Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds member
expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our
reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we
tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this
report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.
http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php
CAVEAT
The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher
and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the
descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by
representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and
completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not
guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for every member. Neither the publisher nor the
authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but
not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover
Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
33
Hanover Research | December 2012
1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20006
P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585
www.hanoverresearch.com
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
34