Article originally posted on The EvoLLLution

Download the interview audio (MP3)

The following interview is with Dave King, associate provost of outreach and engagement at Oregon State University. In a recent Q&A with The EvoLLLution, King outlined his Spectrum of Access concept, describing how an institution can use its content to meet a wide array of student demands. In this interview, he expands on the value of the Spectrum of Access concept, and shares his thoughts on the importance of operational efficiency to successfully meet student needs and support the growth of the institution.

1. How does serving a diversity of students across the ‘spectrum of access’ impact an institution’s relative market potential?

These days, you have to go where the learners are. Our goal with trying to create a more seamless Spectrum of Access was to provide a granular approach for students so they could find what they want when they want it. That’s the old adage that has come from online access; you get what you want when you want it.

Across the Spectrum, you should be able to find access to the kinds of things that meet your needs as a learner.

2. What are the biggest challenges administrators face when it comes to developing a range of programming in a subject area to meet the diversity of needs across the Spectrum of Access?

There are two major challenges we face. One is cultural. At one end of that Spectrum — on the noncredit, extension, continuing ed side — if you have programming that’s evolved there and then you take a look at the [other] side  — with credit-based undergraduate and graduate degree programs — you have a huge cultural difference between the people who provide and develop those kinds of programming.

One of our biggest issues is: how do we share effectively across [these spaces]? How does that module created in a credit course translate into a continuing ed course?

Creating a seamless kind of approach is the first step in that direction.

3. How does this inability impact an institution’s capacity to serve a wide variety of students?

It just means you have to sit down and take it from a very open and transparent approach. You can’t just assume it’s going to happen, you have to manage it, you have to help people recognize the value proposition of their part of the enterprise [and show that it] matches the value proposition of the other parts of the enterprise. Once you start showing the similarities and continuities that are created across those lines, then you get people able and willing to step up but it’s a very actively managed process. It doesn’t just happen on its own.

4. How would improving the efficiency of the course and certificate program development process help to improve an institution’s capacity to expand its offerings?

Immediately there are two sides of it. One, there’s the technical side and part of this is common ways of viewing learning objectives, common platforms — or at least platforms similar enough so they can intersect with each other. Common technical approaches are a part of it.

The other side of it is actually helping people see you can build from the basics up to a more technical and sophisticated end of the learning experience by using modules. I talked about culture before, and there’s a whole lot of “not invented here” mentality in higher education. Just because I create a learning module on, let’s say, how a plant takes up nitrogen, does that mean some biology instructor across campus is going to say, “Oh yeah. I can use that in my class”? Not unless you sit down with them and help them understand how this modular approach actually improves their abilities to teach students and learners in the broadest sense possible.

5. Is there anything you’d like to add about the changes an institution can make to its operational efficiencies to allow more students along the spectrum of access to be served by that school?

We just have to approach it in as collaborative, interactive and coordinated of a fashion as possible. There are a lot of silos in institutions like ours, whether it’s the silos of undergraduate education or in continuing ed on another side. I’m not a big fan of silos, but I recognize silos have value, they help money flow, they help communication flow, but those silos have to be much more porous than they are right now. This seamless approach means they flow across silos. It takes leadership at the top as well as the grassroots level to realize we’ll take advantage of silos when they have value to us and then we’ll make them more porous and more able to cross over from one to the other when we can provide significant value to the learners.

Key Takeaways

• By reducing the silos that exist between divisions and units across the institution, it’s possible to serve a wider group of students with a more diverse set of offerings.
• It’s critical for staff, faculty and institutional leaders to overcome the “not invented here” mentality to help create those relationships.
• If institutions commit to improving the process of developing courses and programs, they will be able to serve more students with more options.

Article originally posted on The EvoLLLution

Click here to download interview audio (MP3)

The following interview is with Dave King, associate provost of outreach and engagement at Oregon State University. During recessions, most businesses change gears and focus on maintaining a status quo through the downturn. Some businesses, however, look to continue growing through these periods. In this interview, King shares his thoughts on ramping up in the postsecondary space, and discusses how it can be possible for an institution to maintaining a focus on institutional growth during periods of declining demand.

1. What are the most significant challenges of competing in the postsecondary space during times of declining demand?

The big issue is how to focus on what the real expectations of the learners are. If demand is off a bit, you have to intensify your focus on what the real demand is and see what you can do about meeting that. That requires more attention to the market analysis you do and the understanding of the marketplace.

2. Is the expectation for institutional growth during downturns realistic?

The market is much larger than many of us think. If you take a look at the numbers from the Lumina Foundation, there are 39 million people within the United States with some college and no bachelor’s degree. Many of those are well into their professional lives and, just in Oregon, there are 940,000 people with some college and no bachelor’s degree. Providing access to those folks is an extremely large market. Just because the demand has softened a little bit, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reach out to have a very customized and nimble product for that group of people.

3. What are a few strategies institutions can put in place to continue growing enrollments during periods of declining demand?

One of the things we’ve done (and we had been watching market demand for a while) is try to identify those areas where many people or most people have desires. Lots of people need to be doing better at their job tomorrow. Moving them toward actually working toward a degree is an evolutionary process.

One of the things we’ve done is create a post-baccalaureate degree in computer science. Computer science was an area people told us they were really looking for additional educational opportunities. Secondarily, if you already had a bachelor’s degree or were approaching a bachelor’s degree, you could spend one more year with us online and you would have a dual degree. The cost of that, although it’s a fairly premium expense, is less than getting a master’s degree, either face to face or online because you only spend a year doing it. Those folks coming out of that program are finding that their starting jobs are at the same level that the master’s students are starting.

We’re disrupting the marketplace a little bit by moving in and finding a niche where people actually get what they need in a more direct fashion.

4. What role does the extended campus play in helping to drive this growth, and what role does the institution itself play?

What’s important to realize is that there’s a full spectrum of access where [a prospective student’s level of] demand would find a place to land. We could have cooperative extension programming, we can have learning modules, we can have full continuing ed professional programs, we can have credit courses, etc.

The important thing is to have a full spectrum of these access points to meet the demand that’s out there. What we’re finding is that in the non-credit area and in the continuing ed area, we can be a little bit more nimble, a little more reactive; we can actually start some things that people can try and test at a lower price point. That means we have to try to figure out how to connect the credit side from extended campus and the professional and continuing ed group and that kind of thing. There’s a certain amount of culture that has to be bridged in those areas. If we can be nimble in some kind of the spectrum and really try new things, that gives us a leg up in how we meet the demand.

Marking a prospective student’s learning demands on this spectrum of access helps institutions identify what type of learning solution is needed for the individual, from just-in-time training to a full degree program.

5. Is there anything you’d like to add about the growth imperative during periods of declining demand and how institutions can reinvent themselves to make sure they can still compete and grow when traditional marketplaces are starting to fail?

The real issue is, how do we evolve from what has been 300 years of supply-side approach where we said, “We’re the experts, we know what you need” to the demand side, to understanding what the demand is and being able to provide something along that spectrum of access that allows people to find what they want when they want it?

When the Internet surfaced as the next big thing in the ’90s, there were a whole lot of people out there that had no idea, technologically, how it worked, but they began to realize that what this embodies: it’s that “I get what I want when I want it.”

In education, if we can’t figure that out, then we’re at peril.

Key Takeaways

• Through there is diminished demand in the traditional postsecondary market, there are a large number of new market streams that higher education institutions could focus on to continue growth.
• It’s important to ensure the institution offers programming that appeals to prospective students at every level of the spectrum of access.
• If institutions don’t serve students as customers who expect a high quality of service, they will struggle in the new postsecondary marketplace.

Over the years I have collaborated on several projects with Mike Boehlje, agricultural economist at Purdue, including:

• A scholarly article on how information gains value in the digital world (Journal of Applied Communication, 1994) that led to on-going discussions across the country about the future of Extension in the digital transformation, and
• an editorial calling for the creation of an online Extension Service initiative (Journal of Extension, 2000) now called eXtension.

Most recently we recorded a podcast with Bob Bertsch from North Dakota State titled Working Differently in Extension, based on a commentary on the future eXtension that was published in the October 2013 Journal of Extension.

Listen to the Working Differently in Extension podcast.

Take look at the latest commentary and the listen to the podcast, and let me know what you think.

I recently gave this presentation at the National Outreach Scholarship Conference, and I will be repeating the presentation at our division’s upcoming strategic conference (Oct. 29-31).

I’m interested in your reactions. What resonates with you? What questions does this evoke? I’ll respond to any questions or comments both here and at the conference on Oct. 30.

Imagine what a truly 21st Century public university will become.

Continue reading →