MELA Meeting Minutes 2003 - 2017

5. The use of AspireEDU to is monitor the at risk students, to contact them, to document communication and interactions, and to refer the student to the appropriate support. All reports and data are course specific. All reports contain live links that redirect the user to the specific area of Canvas. Reports show last access to the course and last submission to the course. 6. Jenny stated that the integration and setup for AspireEDU took about two minutes – Jenny said it was the easiest LTI setup, and data was provided the next day. Customer Service is very easy to work with and have already made changes to accommodate Holmes. The company was created in 2012, and is very new. Canvas interface and web interface is provided. 7. AspireEDU shows provided and hosted students, is an easy way to identify LDA and other information through a quick-glace dashboard, and shows additional contact information for students. 8. Drawbacks: Printing capabilities, and can’t tweak algorithm (yet), and Instructor must enter 0’s or average will be inflated. 9. Tish talked with a college who currently uses AspireEDU and Canvas. The college was very impressed, and highly recommended the product. They have turned the product over to the Counseling Center to use. 10. If a student is withdrawn or cut from a class, the class is removed from the student report. If reinstated, it shows back up and a back log is recorded. Allowing the instructor to see the Admin notes is an optional feature. iii. Audra stated that the automated calling system is very beneficial for beginning-of-the- year calling (reminders about class starting, students who haven’t logged in, etc.). When students become at risk, the personal phone contact is best rather than automated calling. iv. Jennifer Leimer stated that so many institutional policy changes are needed in order to implement DropGuard. For AspireEDU it is possible that it only be implemented for the eLearning department, not the entire school. Many schools already have attendance software in place, and will not want to replace it with a new system. v. Krista stated that she was concerned because she would not have the support for someone to contact the at-risk students that are reported by AspireEDU. Jennifer Leimer stated that instructors are able look at the reporting and contact their at-risk students personally, rather than hiring a specific person to do it. vi. Audra stated that instructors must actively use the retention software – if they do not, you can clearly see which instructors are taking care of business and calling at risk students and which are not. Retention demands that instructors be actively involved. vii. Audra stated she is only facilitating the needs of the consortium and she is neutral on these products and feel they are both different from one another. It is up to the consortium vote to determine what the consortium pursues. If the consortium does not vote upon retention software it will be up to each institution to purchase. viii. Jennifer Leimer stated that the consortium could purchase AspireEDU, and it would not affect other areas of the campus, or campuses who already had a retention software in place. Dropguard will affect other areas of the college, and unless you get full-buy in you will not get the full benefit. AspireEDU tailors towards online learning and colleges can chose to use it or not. Thoughts after the presentations:

514