In our modern digital world, where savvy students are tethered to the Internet for the vast majority of their information, entertainment and communication needs, providing top-notch student services online has grown into a vitally important element of an institution’s ability to effectively conduct business.

Institutions can now find guidance in this area of their strategic planning through the new Center for Transforming Student Services (CENTSS), which this month officially launched a sophisticated “audit tool” service for measuring and benchmarking the effectiveness of online student services in 20 key areas, ranging from academic advising, catalog production, and library services to orientation processes, registration services, tutoring, and more.

How CENTSS Started

CENTSS was established through a partnership among the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET), the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU), and Seward, Inc., a Minneapolis-based elearning and digital-strategies company (see “Going From a Basic Survey Tool to the CENTSS Web-Based Audit Tool."). CENTSS expands upon WCET’s historic and extensive research related to providing effective student services online. As noted on the CENTSS website, the audit tool service is “based on years of research identifying the critical components in each student service and defining them at increased levels of online sophistication.”

The concept of the CENTSS audit tool actually got its start at a 2002 WCET conference in which Patricia A. Shea, WCET’s assistant director, was presenting on a WCET student services initiative called “Beyond the Administrative Core,” which was a 2000 to 2003 Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships grant project. (We reported on this in the May 15, 2002 issue of Educational Pathways.) Also presenting at the conference was Darlene Burnett, who has conducted extensive research on student services and has served as a primary developer for an IBM consulting strategy and model known as “Best Practices in Student Services.” Paul Wasko, director of E-Services - MnOnline, MnSCU, attended both presentations. He brought Shea and Burnett together to create an audit tool that could be used as a mechanism for figuring out what level of sophistication and effectiveness MnSCU’s 32 colleges and universities may or may not have achieved in relation to providing student services online.

Beginning Framework

Two key components made up the basic framework of the CENTSS audit tool: a web of student services illustration created by Shea that depicts an array of services that should be available to online learners, and a model of a series of stages created by Burnett that delineates four generations of student services. The graphic features 31 wide-ranging student services that one would typically find on a college campus, and the four generations are descriptors for the level of activity or sophistication these services may or may not occupy. The four generations are:
 
Generation 1 - Content
The information is presented from the institution’s point of view, using terminology and organization that mirror the physical organization and processes of the institution.

Generation 2  - Content in Context
The information is channeled for population segments. For example, there are separate paths for prospective and matriculating students to various student services. These services are distinct entities, however, still reflecting their physical organization.

Generation 3 - Customization, Personalization, and Community
New “one-stop” services - like enrollment services - aggregate and integrate a range of related services to provide personalized and customized service from the student’s point of view. Transaction services, portals, and communication tools enhance the student’s experience.

Generation 4- High Tech/High Touch
Services are designed to establish and nurture a relationship between the student and the institution. Some of the identifying features include process orientation from the student’s point of view, decision-making tools, personal recommendations, proactive communications, and real-time interaction with the institution.

How the Tool Works

MnSCU chose 20 services from the list of 31 that they felt were most vital to students. Shea, Burnett, and a small team of consultants identified anywhere from seven to 15 components that were most critical to each of those 20 services and applied definitions for every component within the framework of the four generations. All told, there are currently 166 critical components within the 20 services. For example, an academic advising service tagged as being at generation zero would mean that a prospective or current student would not find any information about academic advising at the institution’s website. At generation one, that student would find a phone number and a location of the academic advising office. At generation two, the student could search through an online directory and launch an e-mail message to an advisor. At generation three, he or she would be able to view the academic advisor’s calendar and select an online or face-to-face appointment time. At generation four, that same calendar function would generate some pre-questions about the purpose of the advising appointment and set up an appropriate length of time for the appointment. A question regarding a drop-add procedure, for instance, might point the student to some online information and arrange for a ten-minute appointment, whereas a question related to what course options are available to meet a specific graduation requirement would take longer. The calendar function would also include a reminder system, whereby the student would receive e-mail confirmations in advance of the appointment.

Discovering Abilities and Making Plans

For institutions seeking information about its student services capabilities, discovering the level of ability within the critical components of any given service is accomplished by answering a series of survey questions. The results of the questions are then synthesized into a report that identifies the generation level an institution has reached for each critical component. In the early phase of developing the audit tool, the entire process was done with some basic survey software. MnSCU’s e-student committee, with representatives from all 32 MnSCU institutions, tested the survey and acted as an advisory board for the its development.

Responses that Generate Results

When explaining how the audit tool has worked thus far, Shea says that survey participants from all parts of an institution’s student services departments will “go into a question and choose a response that most closely matches what they do on their website. It also has some open-ended text questions, and that have been really interesting. For example, one question has to do with asking what your future plans are for moving these services to a different level. We found that you can get answers all across the board - from ‘our institution never moves forward on this because we do not have the money’ to someone else saying that he or she has been sitting on a campus-wide committee for two years that is going to roll out a new student service online in the next two weeks.”

Wasko adds that “some folks at the same institution were thinking they had no information on their website, while others thought they were at a generation four model, with the truth being somewhere in between. So, there was a strong realization that at some institutions there was not a uniform understanding of where they were at and where they needed to go.” “It lets communication problems surface,” says Shea. “You find out what the challenges are.”

Two Basic Ways of Using the Audit Tool

Shea further explains that there are two basic ways in which an institution can use the audit tool: as a group exercise with everyone located in the same room answering questions and entering into discussions, or as an independent exercise in which student services administrators and staff answer questions on their own without a group presence. Depending on the institution, either method can have benefits and drawbacks. “There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.”

For example, last year, at a workshop on the audit tool that was co-sponsored by WCET and The Higher Learning Commission of NCA, Shea says that a team of people, comprised of senior level administrators and some “front-desk-in-the-trenches” student services personnel, in a group setting, were “intimidated about making recommendations for change because, in the hierarchy of things, they did not feel that their opinion mattered.” On the other hand, she has seen “more raw comments” come out of audit exercises conducted in an independent fashion, as opposed to being conducted in a group setting. And, from another point of view, a group setting can help to better inform people who may not be as cognizant as they should be about the students services that their institution is providing online.

Building Awareness

The bottom line is the audit tool should “move people down a path to further enhance and develop their online student services,” says Wasko. Basically, the tool provides an environment for institutions to understand the scope of service they either have or do not have, as well as for mapping out a strategy for next steps. “In general,” concludes Shea, “the real advantage and the concept behind the audit tool is to help build awareness and benchmark where an institution is with their level of services, and raise their understanding about where they can go.”

Websites:

CENTSS
www.centss.org

MnSCU
www.mnscu.edu

WCET
www.wcet.info

Seward, Inc.
www.sewardinc.com

Minnesota Online
www.minnesotaonline.org