MnVU CAS Meeting

25 August 1999, 9:00-11:30
MnSCU, Energy Park, Room 304

Attendees

Manuel Lopez, MnSCU
Craig Froke, MnSCU
Myron Umerski, St. Cloud State University
Margo Mueller, UMN
Donna Triebwasser, UMN
John Print, UMN
Wayne Sigler, UMN
Craig Swan, UMN
Linda Ellinger, UMN
Sue Engelmann, UMN
Dale Jarrell, MnSCU
Scott Lindgren, UMN
Gary Langer, MnSCU
Paul Wasko, DOA-OT
Ann Hill Duin, UMN
Doreen Starke-Meyerring, UMN

Purpose of the Meeting

The purpose of the meeting was to obtain more information about the Course Applicability System (CAS), currently developed at the University of Ohio, and about possibilities for MnVU's participation in the system.  For this purpose, Jack Southard, the director of DARS, and Jason Elwood, the developer of CAS gave a presentation to the group, detailing the rationale behind CAS and its main features.

Presentation

Jack Southard began the presentation by pointing out that both the U of M and MnSCU have already been participating in DARS for an extended period of time.  DARS was developed in Ohio to meet legislative requests similar to those in Minnesota—to facilitate credit transfer for students who wanted to take courses from different institutions in the state.  In Ohio, the legislature has funded two staff positions to work with Ohio schools in implementing the system.

Jason Elwood continued the presentation with details about CAS and a demo of the system.  He presented the results of a study conducted by Dr. Olga Nelson at Eastern Michigan of the CAS project in Ohio.  Elwood focused on this analysis, discussing student transfer patterns, student needs, institutions' needs, DARS service features, CAS themes, CAS goals, previous and future releases, national developments, developments in Ohio, implementation milestones, implementation considerations, and sources for more information.

Student Transfer Patterns

·         students are attending more than one institution

·         shopping for the best deal

·         mobility

·         returning student, distance education, etc.

Student Needs

·         students want complete and instantaneous information

·         comprehensive academic portfolio

·         reduced uncertainty about transfer courses

·         comparative degree requirements;

·         informed planning,

·         access--anytime, anywhere

Institutions' Needs

·         information that is timely and easily updated

·         increased efficiency and effectiveness

·         recruiting tools

·         recognition and credibility

·         better collaboration between institutions

·         provide a student service

Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS)—Service features

·         major/ minor requirements

·         report of course/ events needed to complete a degree

·         based on existing catalog requirements

·         consistent, documented course-to-course equivalencies, and more

CAS Themes

·         automated entire process

·         access to information

·         student-driven process

·         personalized report

·         a student-driven web access to transfer articulation and degree audit information

·         based on self-reporting of courses by prospective transfer students

·         reported information created by existing degree audit and transfer articulation tables

·         near universal access provided via the internet and a web browser

Goals

·         provide near universal access

·         utilize current technology

·         planning guide and storage vehicle

·         multi-state, decentralized system

·         provide potential transfer students with direct access to information

·         provide a storage vehicle to hold the student’s complete academic portfolio

·         evaluate portfolio for acceptability/equivalency and applicability

·         provide multi-state electronic decentralized advising system

·         provide direct public access for casual inquiry

Releases

·         several releases (CAS 1.5 July 1; CAS 2.0 release Oct 1 with encryption, data replication, indirect mainframe DARS connection)

·         Future releases: EDI enabled processing of transfer work; graphic interface; interfacing with non-DARS audits

What’s going on nationally

·         Arizona and Wisconsin projects (DARS /CAS will be phase 4 in Wisconsin's TIS system)

·         Other interested states CA, MA, NV, WA

·         CAS development

·         Florida has common course number system; produced such a system for $15 million.  Agreement with them that they will interface with us

In Ohio

·         7 schools in production

·         8 schools in implementation

·         include the remaining Ohio institutions (3-4 year plan for 38 public institutions)

Implementation Milestones

·         campus organization (August September)

·         training workshop 8September 19-22--how to implement this on campus)

·         build degree program/transfer articulation information (additional DARwin training, etc)

·         training and marketing (June-August 2000)

·         pilot the software with students (August -Dec 2000)

·         incorporation into CAS network

·         revisions/ broader usage / data maintenance (December--?)

Implementation Considerations

·         Commitment, Communication, Cooperation - based on Dr. Nelson’s study of CAS implementation)

·         dedicated staff (push the schools along; people on campus need to have time to do all this equivalency information

·         project management (centralized; decentralized?)

·         policy review (catalog rights, transfer credit)

·         staff training and turnover

·         data maintenance (all equivalency info updated by 1 August—as agreed upon statewide).

More Information

·         Workshop September 19-22 (administrator, advisor, degree, audit, transfer, articulation, computer support)

·         October 10-13: Beginning encoders

·         Oct 24-27 Transfer Articulation

·         The PowerPoint presentation can be downloaded from ftp://avian.dars.muohio.edu/pub/cas/presentations

·         CAS Implementation Web sites: www.public.asu.edu/cas

·         Contact information:
Jason Elwood (Elwoodj@muohio.edu; 513.529.5321)
Jack Southard (southajf@muohio.edu; 513.529.5360)

Discussion—Questions, Answers, Comments

After a demonstration of the current CAS system, there were questions and answers:

Q: Where is the information from participating institutions stored?

A: Schools have autonomy over all their information (it can be stored centrally or locally)

Q: Does CAS require transfer agreements among all participating schools?

A: No; a combination of agreements and mere transfer tables works, too.

Q: What is the ultimate goal for CAS?

A: The ultimate vision for CAS is to become a national transfer guide. Its use is also envisioned for admission offices—to check whether applicant coursework fulfills the requirements for admission.

Q: How would competency-based learning experiences be dealt with?

A: Competency-based learning experiences can go into student portfolios; they could be dealt with just like other courses could, but the individual schools would have to make the decision about acknowledging such experiences. 

Q: Will there be problems with replication of information and consequently difficulties with updating two separate systems?

A: No; CAS is flexible; it will just link to information at institutions; CAS merely uses the information that institutions already provide—there is no conversion problem.  DARS uses the data, but not the data structure that individual schools have. 

Q: How does CAS deal with the problem of ever-changing online catalogs, which, however, server contractual functions?

A: Everything in CAS is designed for multiple catalogs; however, policy questions concerning catalogs need to be addressed at the institutional level; the system will not be able to address such questions.

Q: How well can CAS accommodate such complicated systems as the U of M and MnSCU?

A: Ohio State is also very complicated; CAS will be able to deal with different course evaluation approaches even among colleges within a university. 

Q: Will students be able to select multiple institutions (Can they enter their course work and check how their course work would advance them toward a degree at multiple institutions)?

A: This option is currently being explored; it is possible if institutions are on the same server. 

Q: Considering that all students might build portfolios, what are the long-term hard requirements for CAS?

A: There is currently no information about the expected usage volume and long-term hardware requirements.

Q: What is the time frame for implementing CAS?

A: Generally 15 months; however, with full commitment, implementation can be accomplished in three months.

Q: Does CAS depend on PeopleSoft?

A: No; CAS implementation is a bridging issue.

Comments

Comments were made regarding the helpfulness of the DARS system in the semester conversion at the U of M and regarding possible cost savings, with the example of the University of Georgia, which saved between 20,000 and 30,000 phone calls due to a similar system.

The group will explore what MnVU and individual systems can provide.  It would take another discussion to determine the best approach to this proposal.  Gary Langer offered to take the lead if there is commitment.