Swift Kick Central

Affinity Housing: The Importance of Roommate Matching

College of Coastal Georgia recently transitioned to a four-year residential institution. Among the many changes, the campus will soon include residence halls and a director of residence life. Dave Leenhouts, director of CCGA's student life, heads the committee to hire their director of residence life.

In a conversation with Dave over the weekend, he talked about how the big buzz word on the committee is affinity housing. In other words, pre-matching roommates ahead of time based on similar traits to ensure higher retention rates.

The impact of first year roommates on an individual is huge and can have lasting life time effects from grades, to weight, to drinking habits. The NY Times recently posted an article on the science of roommates.

First-year roommates matter. Though they may go their separate ways sophomore year, their reach can ripple throughout the college years and after.

The researchers aren't entirely clear on why one student has such an impact over another in their first year, but it sounds like a hybrid of the proximity effect of the Framingham Heart Study and the emotional gap felt by first year students.

CCGA is currently using Red Rover as their campus directory to socially connect first year students to similar students and campus clubs. Dave wants to go further and use the directory to roommate students based on similar interests, activities, and background.

An affinity housing dashboard is already within the scope of Red Rover. And because so much of Red Rover is data driven it will be interesting to study the results of matching roommates who are 100% identical verses those who are intellectually, socially, spiritually, etc opposites as a way to promote diversity.

What Will You Say No To? Defining Company Values

In a recent post, 37signals showcased what it means for a company to know where it stands. Their example was the NYC bike maker Francesco Bertelli.

Bertelli is a great example of a company that knows where it stands. The best way to know where you stand is to figure out what you won’t do. What will you say no to? Francesco puts his no’s right out in front. It makes the experience better for everyone.

And it's true, Bertelli makes beautiful bikes.

Software and bikes are very similar in this regard. Too many software tools on the college market fight feature for feature and use words like robust, comprehensive, and all-in-one.

We're happy to let them continue to out feature each other. May the company with the longest list of features win. With every new feature comes complexity and distancing from the core values and the schools find it harder and harder to gain adoption.

There's beauty in simplicity. There's also usability in simplicity.

If you're curious about where we stand, check out our previously posted guiding principles: Part 1, 2, and 3

The Tech of Student Success: Comparing Facebook, Ning and Red Rover

John Jay College of Criminal Justice was reviewing a number of different social tools, trying to figure out where they wanted to invest their time and money. They asked me to help clarify how they fit together.

I did it with a little video and I though it came out pretty well - if just a wee bit long winded - so I wanted to share.

Here you go:

Comparison of Social Network Tools for John Jay from Red Rover on Vimeo.

Click here for the slides of the Junco / Heiberger (2009, March) You can use Facebook for that? Research-supported strategies to engage your students. NACPA Presentation

Correction: At one point I said "Mr. Junco" but I obviously meant "DR. Junco."

Are Blog Platforms University Hosted Email All Over Again? Is This Bad?

The goal of our project is to build a tool that all schools can use to create learning networks for all students.

We're working with schools of all shapes and sizes; all across the spectrum of technological savviness.

The system connects students using tags, or keywords. Tags which will eventually be created organically from web 2.0 tools that the students attach to their profile.

Now that we're getting into attaching blogs, twitter, delicious, etc. to the student profile, the simple question comes up: what blogging platform should we recommend to the schools that don't currently have one?

There are two main questions for me at this stage. The first is philosophical, the second is pragmatic:

1) Should colleges host their students' blogs?

2) Regardless of who hosts it, what should the criteria be for the blog recommendation?

The questions, discussed:

Should colleges host their students' blogs?

There seems to be a growing trend for colleges to use Word Press, specifically Word Press Multi User deployments. There's a great community forming, and they are doing an impressive job of organizing around the barcamp / Wordcamp model.

I love this direction and I applaud all of the schools that are exploring, especially those using the blogs as universal e-portfolios.

These schools show innovation is possible. They show the way.

But . . . is this just like email? Once email wasn't just a school thing, they became an identifier, like a phone number, that stayed with the individual.

It's fine to have your school or company give you an email to use professionally, but is that the model schools want to pursue with blogs? Should a "blog as e-portfolio" only be "professional" and attached to college? Shouldn't blogs from their 6-12 years in school (where they exist) be passed through to college? Shouldn't the blog continue with the graduate to help them maintain all of that 21st Century learning networking that we taught them?

What happens when a student transfers schools and all of their work is in the Word Press Multi-user install of their old school? (Can this be switched easily? I've never migrated a WP blog.)

Getting into these details is new for me, so I'm hoping some of the folks that have been thinking about this issue longer can shed some light on the process and their decision.

What I've read is something along the lines of "we really don't know if we're signing on to host a student's blog forever, but it's not as expensive at it used to be, and we'll figure that out later." I'm fine with that answer, I would just like to be clear on the issues.

What are the criteria for a blog recommendation?

I'm down to either Word Press or Tumblr. If there is another platform that we should consider, do tell. To make the conversation more specific

Simplicity vs. Flexibility

I'm a huge fan of Simplicity.

Here's the main screen for Word Press:

Here the main screen for Tumblr:

Which interface is going to get people blogging faster? Which one is clear and makes you want to click?

Comment system

I'm currently obsessed with using Disqus, because we can aggregate the comments of a student in their e-portfolio. Using the Disqus API, we can import "likes" and rankings of comments.

Disqus will work with both. Bonus points to the platform that has the quickest integration.

Open Source vs. Private

I'm not religious about this issue, but I am a bit of anarchist / idealist and open source fits nicely into this predilection.

If, however, a private and closed, even slightly evil, company provides a better experience of simplicity and quality (see: Apple) I will bow down.

IT involvement

It's nice if any excited individual at the university can experiment. Not using IT seems to rule out Word Press Multi User installs.

Also, it's important to note, one of the tenets of our projects is allowing student and faculty member choice. They should be allowed and encouraged to use whatever works for them. (We're betting that the majority of their choices will produce an RSS feed we can work with, someday Facebook might even share outside of the API.)

This is just me trying to parse the various issues in public for when I'm asked my opinion.

San Antonio's Involvement Dashboard

San Antonio College was the first school to launch Red Rover in '09 with the new involvement dashboard.

Oh my is it fun.

Talk about doing more with less in times of tight budgets:

Two hours after they ran their orientation, Tyler Archer was able to go into the involvement dashboard and see what actually happened.

We've talked about this for ever. The "Data Don't Drive" paper from the Lumina Foundation bemoans research and data gathering that is never used and advocates for "data-based decision-making." They simply want more data that actually empowers members of the academic community to be agents of change.

Tyler gets a live "involvement dashboard." Her data is Real Time. (No 18 month delays on compiling the self reported engagement metrics here!) And she, as the practitioner, can act on that immediately. That's powerful. That's just the way it should be.

Here's how it works:

Tyler goes to her Red Rover involvement dashboard and sees a simple pie chart.

The chart tells her: Who joined how many campus groups?

She can then click on any segment. She can focus on students that haven't joined any groups yet, or she can focus on the smaller percentage of hyper engaged students.

Let's say she starts with not yet involved students, looking to get them connected to at least one group.

1) She clicks on "View all Who Joined 0 Groups"

2) She can click the gray arrow on each name, revealing the student's keywords, their year, major, residence hall (if applicable) and a link to their social network or any other links (a blog, etc.)

This gets to some exciting new areas. What we're seeing is a correlation between the number of words students put into their profile (the depth to which they describe themselves) and their involvement on campus. This is a new area of exploration, but we think the measure of digital identity development in the educational context will become a key metric.

What is exciting about the Folksonomy at the heart of Red Rover is that even when a new student puts in only a little bit of information, it's still wonderfully useful.

Let's say Tyler is going through her list, clicking around, looking to connect students to groups, clubs, or orgs.

She comes to David here:

[By the way: David has been told that all of his info on Red Rover is public, so he's made the conscious choice to put this info in the open. No FERPA issues and no problems with using the collective language / activity for research. By linking his Facebook, he's simply confirming his identity and giving people options for getting a hold of him, his info is still behind Facebook's privacy filters.]

David has not joined any groups and he only put in three words, which is approximately 1/4 of the average number of words we are seeing.

3) Tyler clicks on "basketball" and can see two hugely important bits of information:

a) there are 58 other people in her small spring orientation that like basketball.

b) there are currently no groups/clubs/orgs that have anything do with basketball.

What she does with the info is up to her as the practitioner.

4) In two clicks she can email or Facebook message David and let him know that there are 58 other basketball players in his year - does he want to be the one of the leaders of a new club?

5) Or she can click on the number in that window and get a list of all the new students (or existing students) who like basketball. She can message them all with a time to meet on the courts.

She could easily look for established leaders of one group, who may be older, who also have "basketball" as a keyword, and may want to take on another group.

In less than 5 minutes she can meet David's needs. She can make him (and 58 other brand new students) feel like the school listens, cares and is there to help. How much does this group cost the school? Nothing. It's just a few clicks.

Now, critically, the students have all of this information and ability too. They are empowered to be leaders. They are empowered to connect on their own and take care of themselves.

Tyler isn't required for it to work, but she'll play with it and help where she can. Because she's not in student life to do the paperwork. She's in it because she loves helping students. This new dashboard just makes it incredibly fast and easy.

6) She can go back to that pie chart and watch it move.

7) If anyone above her asks "Just what does student life / activities do anyway?" she can tell David's story. Or better, she can send them David's blog.

The New Quick Filter: Feature Review

We've launched a new feature to make the Red Rover directory even more useful!

One point of clarification - every school has its own network, so when I'm showing users who are matched, that means I am matching with everyone at the school. If I want to filter by the small groups of Major, Year, or Residence hall, I just click the other boxes.

Red Rover Filter Bar from Kevin Prentiss

Click over to Vimeo to see the video in higher resolution. It's much easier to read.

The Ivory Tower: Attack or Negotiate? Part 1

Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures is an accidental iconoclast. He wants to disrupt (usurp!) the power of educational institutions, among other institutions, and give the "Power to the People." He thinks it's inevitable, good for the people, and good business.

It's not a mean spirited interest. He's looking at the inevitable economics of change. Craigslist didn't hate newspapers, it just destroyed their cash cow (classified ads) replacing it with a simple free version for it's own purposes. The newspapers' printing press (that gave them eyeballs and classifieds revenue) suddenly wasn't required.

Like many venture capitalists, Albert summarizes his extensive experiences into a few "characteristics" that can be used to judge ventures: "technology leverage, disruption of markets, no gatekeepers, capital efficiency, data asset/ network effect defensibility."

It's the third characteristic, "no gatekeepers", that is most interesting to me strategically. For us, with Red Rover, the question is simply this - if we want to improve, or "disrupt", higher education:

Should we work with colleges?

Albert, I believe, would say no, they are gatekeepers. It's a big red flag for him. I spoke with him briefly, and he told me he is "not interested in the next Blackboard." I think I can safely conjecture, based on Albert's blogs and much of the discussion in those circles, that "the next Blackboard" would mean an incremental improvement based on the current business model. Nice, fine, but not fundamentally disruptive and therefore not so interesting. The idea being, one can't simultaneously work with and disrupt the same folks. They will simply close the gate.

Let's look at the landscape.

Starting with our old-school approach anchor:

Blackboard. Blackboard sells to schools. They are a 1.3 Bn company focused on providing a "single, seamless learning environment". Web 2.0? We've got that! They solve the school's problems with privacy and control and get paid for it. The students don't much like it, but they have to use it. Blackboard cannot innovate for the students where their desires are in conflict with the schools.

Blackboard has a few open source competitors based on a "single learning environment" approach. It's a "power at the center" approach, but we're interested in empowerment - power at the edges.

"The disruptive technology almost always takes root in a very undemanding application, and the established market leaders almost always try to cram the disruption into the established application." -Clayton Christensen, author of "Disrupting Class" (clearly on topic).

The shift is from centralized to decentralized - it's the opposite of Blackboard's model, and no amount of embedding / cramming will change their underlying business model and structure. Following Christensen, we're looking for something simple, with a new model, based on decentralized philosophies.

The scenario is easy enough to outline, as Albert does on his blog as well: the centralized university model was built on scarcity of information. Libraries were a big deal, so gather 'round. Professor's knowledge was a big deal, so gather 'round (and buy a very expensive ticket). Those things are not centralized anymore. Information is everywhere and often free. Professors and their bits of knowledge are everywhere, at all times, with text, audio, pictures and video. Itunes U. MIT's open coursewear. Colleges are left arguing for their own necessity with "the people you'll meet!" at the high end and "you'll never be anything without a degree" at the lower end.

Leaving aside the degree issue, the info is there. The problem (expense) is now the navigation. If you're interested in anything beyond the 1800 or so topics covered in the MIT courseware (or other repositories with curated taxonomies) it's spread out all over the internet. It's highly decentralized. This viewpoint is so common it is cliched in the ed tech "echo chamber," so let's move forward.

Defining the Goal:

Let's say education is growth. It's X + 1. With X being where the learner is at with a given topic plus one step forward.

So the technical solution: peer to peer sharing of information "steps" so the learner can navigate through the noise. We need a relevancy filter by topic and level (x) plus a record of others' exploration tracks to create scalable next step recommendations (+1). The more accurate we can make these two steps, the easier the navigation, the more people will participate, and the greater the disruption.

This isn't new. Amazon.com does this wonderfully. Itunes' "Genius" is decent as well ("If you knew a lot about music, this would be your next purchase!"). There are many examples.

In the digital infospace, many folks manage this x+1 process through curation of their own peer learning networks - consisting of a mash up of buzzing tools:

Twitter
Delicious
RSS readers
Disqus
Blogs
Digg
Wikis, etc.

They create and manage a network of some relevancy and filter it with varying levels of success. Because this is working in practice, with a little effort, it's obvious to these geeky folks that undergraduate education would be at least better, at most unnecessary, if more people did what they did.

But they don't. Almost none of this excitement has had an effect on your typical college student's education process.

Unfortunately, both disruptions and revolutions require participation.

So what characteristics can we cite so far?

Working with schools: Blackboard has both a business model and student usage. Sure it's forced usage, but two check marks where it matters.

Not working with schools: The rest of the tools on the list above are simple and potentially disruptive as far as they facilitate x+1, but none have both revenue and students. Most have neither.

This is just the current state of course, and as a VC and entrepreneur our bet is on the trend moving forward from this current state. What will change over the next five years?

What about other start ups / growth stage companies in this space? Where are they betting? A quick sample:

With Schools:

Collegiate Link - "Integrated technology for student affairs."

Inigral - "the first interoperable Facebook application designed for institutions of higher learning."

Orgsync - "collaborative software for an online campus."

Without Schools:

Popego - "Cut out the noise. Get a shortcut to the good stuff." (I love this interface and it's an elegant (x) relevancy filter tool)

Twine - "a new way to gather content and connect with people who share your interests"

Diigo - "a powerful research tool and a knowledge-sharing community"

Hybrid: (market straight to students, work with / get paid by schools)

Zinch - "an interactive community of high school students and colleges. . . " wanting to admit and be admitted to college.

Unigo - "College connected. Find, Review and Explore America's Colleges" This one is questionably hybrid. Perhaps they are Without Schools. Seems like schools would likely be advertisers and thus b-model, but the money quote in their recent write up is "[colleges] should be a bit scared of [us], but they're not. They don't really understand the immensity . . ."

-------------------------

So if you were a venture capitalist wanting to invest in disrupting education, in which category would you invest?

What do you think, should Red Rover hang out with Inigral and Collegiate Link, or Popego or Zinch?

More to come in Part 2.

State of the (Red Rover) Union

Red Rover is an experiment with many layers. It's a big vision made of many small steps.

Here's where we are at: what's working, what's an issue, what's a real challenge, and our plans moving forward.

What's Working:

The tag cloud / folksonomy architecture. Students can tag themselves. Many don't know what "tags" are, but the interface is getting them to put 20 or so tags on themselves anyway. This is plenty to get started and make for useful and interesting comparisons.

The tag match recommendation. Students are finding groups on their campus and joining them. I've heard, "Wow, I've been on campus for three years and didn't know [x group] existed." That's perfect - local discovery= increased engagement. Perfect. While there is very little baseline data available for comparison, what's there suggests Red Rover is 2 - 4x more effective at connecting students to groups than the old methods.

Joining Groups. In our user survey 63% of students found 2-4 groups that interested them, 58% spent time looking at recommended groups, 34% looked for more groups, and most importantly 64% of students joined one or more groups.

The social experience. Students like it. 81% said that they would recommend it to their friends despite the fact the interface and messaging both need work (see challenges below.)

The face to face conversation with schools and students. We are unique in that we are visiting many schools with Swift Kick training. We are actually talking to student affairs folk and student leaders constantly. We get their feedback, challenges, and hopes directly. The relationship matters, now (at startup when we are far from perfect) more than ever.

The Student Leader and Student Affairs Blogs due completely to the great people involved. Special thanks go to Tania Dudina and Debra Sanborn for leading the charge. We're excited to spread the content and conversations via Red Rover.

What's an Issue:

The interface. Simplicity and functionality are difficult to balance. To be successful it has to feel easy. Red Rover scores a C on this right now (down from a C+ when we had fewer features). 53% of respondents said sign up was easy, 30% said it was simple but long and 17% said they were confused. It's also too "plain" according to the surveys. Students using Facebook and Google have come to expect / demand the best. We need to focus on this to get better numbers. We're interviewing new team members to address this specifically.

Communicating the Value to students. We're adding an additional context layer in between social (which the students want to do) and school (which they have to do - think Blackboard). Red Rover needs to start far more on the want side. We have cool personal comparison features (e.g. one click, whole school, interest comparison) but it's not enough of a video game feel to register as entertainment. This is part interface and part message clarity. Either way, it's a pressing challenge. Students will spread "kind of cool," but not nearly as fast as "really cool". Which brings us to:

Adoption. Our fall goal was 30% enrollment leading heavily towards freshmen at thirty schools. Three weeks into school we're almost half way there with about 7 schools, with many more in the 2-10% of enrollment range. I think the interface / clarity above will help, as will new invite / email features that just came out. With adoption, group density is paramount. Meaning that it's almost pointless to talk about 300k installs, what matters is % of a single school or even % of a single class/year at a school. It's the density that creates the "everyone is doing it" feeling and creates a good full dance floor feeling in groups - student groups or classes. No one seems to have cracked this yet. Not Courses 2.0, Course Feed or even Blackboard. Our strategy was to try different adoption methods at different schools and disseminate best practices back to the schools - we're still early with this.

What's a Real Challenge:

Focus. Knowing we would be crossing a chasm with a free product, keeping our costs low was critical. (Meaning if we staffed up and free adoption took 2 years, we would have either needed to raise a decent amount or we would have run out of money.) This left us with not enough staff to maintain aggressive development speed and school support while traveling and training at the same time. It's frustrating for us. There are more schools that would be farther along had we done a better job of proactively communicating about bugs and plans. We should have hired on contract for the July to November window. Not doing so was a mistake. We're trying to hire for this spot now.

Free equals "if I have time" and very few have time. Student affairs folks get slammed on day one of school. Because Red Rover is free, I suspect the project fits into a muddy "would be nice" category - the same category as say, going home at a reasonable time (which also rarely happens). We're working with great people in a tough position. We looked at charging for a joint experiment where charging would increase follow through and compared it to open, at will, collaboration where our project might get put off. Most tech vendors choose option A. A few of these vendors have told us we would find Option B didn't work in higher ed. We went with option B any way. I do not believe this decision was a mistake. It allows for the student led effort which will ultimately be the key. At this phase of the project, however, being lower on the list of priorities for our stake holders presents a challenge. Especially when we are not doing a good job of proactively communicating.

Plans Moving Forward

1. Focus on communicating with our stakeholders. We know so many amazing people - staff, faculty, student leaders, and students. The user survey was listening, now we need to make it a conversation. We need to get our folks the info they need to participate. Specifics: more blogs here, increase phone call check ins, new student leader newsletter, including application news in all newsletters.

2. Focus for 2 months on the user experience. We are slowing down new features development and focusing on making what we have easy, fun, and pretty. Specifics: hiring a user experience designer, 80% of time improving what is there, additional focus groups of students.

3. Hiring a support person. We are doing something very new. It's understandable there would be hesitation and questions. Having a person dedicated to these questions will help.

4. Finish first year experience curriculum. Scott Silverman, Coordinator, First Year Programs, UC - Riverside is heading up this project. It will embed identity development, college connectedness and tech into the curriculum. Including Red Rover and Path101 for career planning. I'll post more on this later. This is a solution to the adoption challenges.

5. Spread student government case studies. Tiq Chapa is launching Red Rover at Stanford as part of his student government responsibilities. This is an exciting direction. We will be telling this story, and the other launches by students, at the ASGA conference coming up shortly (Tom is keynoting).

Join Our Team - Hiring an Account Manager for Red Rover

Red Rover is a free online tool for schools to use that improves education by increasing the engagement, effectiveness and relevancy. We are out to change education for the better and looking for someone, maybe you, to join our team.

As Red Rover continually expands to more and more schools, we want to hire a part time Account Manager to be the direct link to the school admins and help schools through the entire setup process. Please review the information below and if it excites you, send us an email to ( tom at redroverhq dot com ). Feel free to forward this message on to anyone else who might be interested.

THIS JOB IS FOR YOU IF:

- You are passionate about improving education
- You have experience with student activities and/or student clubs and orgs
- You know about, or have experience with, student affairs
- You are technically literate with the internet
- You quickly grasp new software
- You are available for 3-4 hours of daily work M-F 9-6
- You are familiar with Facebook
- You have a bigger left hand than right...
- You are personable on the phone and in person
- You quickly solve problems
- You work in an area that allows quiet and uninterrupted phone calls
- You might have customer support experience

RESPONSIBILITIES:

- Reviewing the Red Rover adoption pipeline for friction with schools
- Working with schools to overcome friction points in setup process
- Reporting on adoption pipeline to RR team
- Suggesting RR enhancements to improve pipeline effectiveness
- Testing development tickets and coordinating with Program Team
- Cleaning out old development tickets and posting new tickets
- Trouble shooting RR issues with admins / regular users
- Following up on RR Facebook Page issues
- Following up on UserSuggest issues

DETAILS:

You will initially be hired as an independent contractor on a per hour wage or per month stipend. Wage/Stipend will be discussed individually and based on experience and excitement for the job.

The Tale of Two Grateful Dead Shirts and My Passion for Red Rover

Last week I spoke at U. Penn Erie's freshmen orientation in a huge room filled with 1200 freshman. The orientation leaders were scattered around the room directing the students to fill the seats closest to the front. In my normal approach, I planted myself by the front door with a few orientation leaders and became the informal welcoming crew.

The students filled in as we greeted them with smiles and good morning wishes. I usually comment on cool or unique clothing I see as a way to personalize the greeting and make the students feel more welcome.

With the room about half full a student walked in wearing a torn Grateful Dead shirt, but I couldn't see his face to make eye contact and say hello because his head was drooped to his chest. His shoulders hung low and his feet barley lifted off the ground as he moved past. All his non verbals said he wasn't excited to be there and he hadn't made any friends yet. As he passed me in our greeting line, I pointed to his shirt and said, "Nice shirt." He looked up and smiled quickly and went on to his seat off to the side by himself.

Ten minutes passed and with the room nearly full, another student walked in with a similar torn Grateful Dead shirt and body language. As he passed me in the greeting line, I pointed at his shirt and said, "Nice shirt." He looked up and smiled. I continued,  "There's another guy who came in with almost the exact same shirt. He's seated somewhere over there." I pointed and the student's eyes lit up for a moment as he looked over the crowd of people. But with 1200 freshman in one room, it was nearly impossible to find that one student again.

I held out hope that maybe they'd run into each other throughout the rest of the day and make a connection because they were the only two people wearing Grateful Dead shirts. But the realistic side of me knew that the odds were extremely low and that made me sad because that one little connection could have completely changed their college experience.

The National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Student in Transition says,

"If we don't engage a student within the first two weeks of school, we essentially loose them for the full 2 or 4 years."

That's my fear of leaving the connection up to chance or through some randomly paired ice breaker. We might loose them for the full 2 or 4 years. I know there is a fantasy about meeting interesting people in college by chance, but we shouldn't stop there.

This leads to the passion I have for what we are doing with Red Rover. It's not just a technology solution or assessment tool, it really can change lives and I believe that 100%. It's why we've put so much into it already and continue to do so. When I talk about Red Rover, I don't want to talk about it as just a technology solution, but rather I want to talk about it in terms of changing students' lives, because that's what it does. For the two students at U. Penn Erie, it could have potentially helped them have a better first day at college, a better four years at college, and ultimately a better life.