I recently had the pleasure of attending the 2024 WCET Annual Meeting in Long Beach, California (home of the Queen Mary). At the risk of comparing rally sizes, WCET’s conference is on the smaller side, giving it what Russ Poulin called “a cozy, collegial feeling,” which is spot on. The schedule featured several high-quality sessions on a range of topics, including credentials, policy, AI, and more. Also, in case you haven’t heard, Russ will be retiring at the end of the year, and WCET gave him a lovely send-off. The staff even printed up some delightful retirement napkins that were decorated with a black-and-white photo of Russ that looks like it was taken sometime during the Clinton administration.

In the paragraphs below, I describe a few of my takeaways from the conference.

“Every Additional Dollar Is a Burden”

In her inspiring opening keynote, Marina Aminy called our attention to the many barriers that students face throughout their college journey, such as registration holds and transcript troubles. As part of her talk, she drew upon her own experiences as a learner to decry the unexpected costs of higher ed that have the potential to end a student’s learning journey. In a recent OLC webinar, we heard something similar from a student panelist, who mentioned that he almost had to drop a course because of a required textbook and lab fee that he didn’t know about. My take from the keynote is that this systemic problem needs to be addressed to help retention efforts and overall student success. #freethetranscript

(Most) Students Want to Do the Right Thing with AI

The issue of academic integrity re: students’ use of AI continues to be pervasive and somewhat divisive and still rather complex. In an AI workshop led by Van Davis and Karen Vignare, one of my table mates whose name I don’t recall made the reasonable claim that most students want to do the right thing when it comes to AI, but many faculty members and instructors don’t articulate their policies very clearly or at all. Furthermore, AI use policies in the teaching and learning context can vary so widely at an institution that students get confused when completing their assignments. Something to think about.

Another Manifestation of the Digital Divide

Speaking of AI, a supergroup panel consisting of Van Davis, Kathe Pelletiere, and Josh Herron shared their thoughts on how to lead in the age of AI. Van focused on equity and access around generative AI, and one warning I took to heart was that students who can afford to pay for premium AI tools are at a significant advantage over students who must rely on the free tools available to them. This has the potential to further contribute to a digital divide that places additional burdens on talented but underfunded students. Van advises institutions to buy the best tools they can afford and make them available to all students. This of course assumes that an institution has adopted the mindset that generative AI should be used by—not prohibited from—students.

“Ask Me About Unicorns”

Beneath our names on the printed conference badges it read: “Ask me about _______.” We were invited by the staff to fill in the blank with a personal interest, which was a way to encourage conversation among attendees. Nobody asked me about game design (and who can blame them), but many people inquired about unicorns when speaking to Jon Mott from Aspire Ability, who was also in fact handing out unicorn stickers. You see, Jon’s point is that job descriptions often include a long list of requirements that few applicants could possibly meet. This causes a matchmaking challenge for both applicants and employers. If hiring companies can’t articulate what they want, and students can’t articulate how their learning applies to the position, it can end up to be a lose-lose situation. We describe this communication gap in an OLC report published not too long ago.

Chevron Deference

I am thankful for those patient souls in higher ed who play the watchdog role when it comes to federal regulatory policy. Although I know enough about the recently-proposed changes offered up by the Department of Education to be keeping an eye on the November 1 deadline, I learned from an expert panel during breakfast about the unsurprising but still staggering dysfunction of the federal government to effectively support the interests of higher ed. One example is the recent repeal of a 40-year-old precedent called Chevron deference, which sounds to me like the name of a spaceship in a sci-fi film, and which has stripped decision-making powers from the hands of experts and put them into the hands of supposedly non-partisan judges. Chevron deference has zero to do with education directly, and I’m definitely simplifying it here, but the panel sees this as changing the dynamics of policy interpretation when it comes to our line of work.

Finally, I’d like to extend my thanks to the WCET staff—especially Megan Raymond and Kim Nawrocki—for putting on a great show and to the presenters and other attendees for the thought-provoking conversations. I consider my WCET experience to be a warm up to OLC’s upcoming Accelerate Conference in November. You may have missed WCET, but there’s still time to join us back at the Swan and Dolphin for our 30th anniversary celebration. I hope to see you there!

Dylan Barth is the Vice President of Innovation and Programs at the Online Learning Consortium, where he provides strategic vision and oversight for professional development, consulting, research and publications, and quality initiatives.