InCommon Student Collaboration Group - Minutes - 20 Jan 2011
Arnie Miles, Georgetown
Ann West, Internet2/InCommon
Khalil Yazdi, Internet2
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2/InCommon
Harry Nicholos, North Carolina State
Kevin Morris College Board
Mark Cowen, Parchment
Heidi Wachs, Georgetown
Nate Klingenstein, Internet2
Karen Hanson, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Kim Alling, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jim Leous, Penn State
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Dave Moldoff, AcademyOne
Keith Hazelton, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tim Cameron, NSC/Meteor
Patrick McFadin, Hobsons
RL “Bob” Morgan, University of Washington
Vince Timbers, Penn State
Mark McConahay, Indiana University
Notes
Discussion centered on the first of three scenarios developed to describe the integration of test data with the proposed CommIT sign-on (http://tinyurl.com/Student-Scenarios).
#1: Inter-Application Data Request: Test Scores
The first scenario involves a student logging in with CommIT credentials, completing an online undergraduate application for admission and needing to add test scores. There was substantial discussion about consent---particularly about when in the process the student would be asked for consent; it could be multiple times.
Upon signing in, the student might be presented with a “provide demographic information” button, which would pre-populate fields such as name, address, and contact information on the application.
When it comes time to adding test scores to the application, ACT for instance would develop a service that the university would call in their admissions application. Where it’s added (in the midst of the application form or after the form is completed) is up to the university and their end-user experience design.
Consent should be sought each time the student asks for information (like a test score) to be released (or whenever the student will need to pay for something).
It is also important that CommIT Collaborative members understand, and that processes are established, so the student always controls the release of information. The student can push information to a university, for instance, but the university cannot pull information from other relying parties on its own without request from the user.
In this scenario, it would be up to those with the information (like ACT or the College Board) to develop policies and processes to ensure consent. At the same time, it will be essential to the success of CommIT that the user flows be as smooth as possible.
Q: Should data flow from one CommIT Collab participant to another only upon user consent?