1 Online Academic Program Review Committee 2.0 Final Report Submitted by David Patton and Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson Central Michigan University
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Online Academic Program Review Committee 2.0 Final Report Submitted by
David Patton and Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson Central Michigan University
2
Table of Contents
History of Committee ........................................................................................................................ 3
Committee Members ........................................................................................................................ 3
OAPC 2.0 Purpose and Charges ........................................................................................................ 3
Process and Communication ............................................................................................................. 4
Summary of Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 5
Subgroup Reports
a) Subgroup - Education and Preparation ............................................................................ 10
b) Subgroup - Student Needs .............................................................................................. 12
c) Subgroup – Market Analysis ............................................................................................ 18
d) Subgroup - Structural ...................................................................................................... 28
General Next Steps ............................................................................................................................ 36
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Recognitions and Thanks .................................................................................................................. 36
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 37
3
History The Online Academic Program Committee (OAPC 1.0) was initially launched by the Board of Trustee’s and given their charge by President Ross in the spring of 2015. Based on the findings of the original committee, phase two of the OAPC was launched and dubbed the OAPC 2.0 Committee in the spring of 2016. The OAPC 2.0 committee retained its original members and expanded its membership based on recommendations made by committee members and the Academic Senate. Over the course of the past year, four working subgroups examined student, education, market and structural considerations influencing online and blended learning at the national level as well as within CMU. The committee and subgroup work and recommendations follow. Committee Members
David Patton: Committee Co-Chair: Interim Associate Vice President, Enrollment Management Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson: Committee Co-Chair: Dean, College of Education and Human Services Jeffery Betts: Chairperson, School of Health Sciences Kathryn Dirkin: Faculty, Teacher Education and Professional Development Ian Elliott: President, Student Government Association Shellie Haut: Executive Director, Licensure, Regulatory Services. and Human Capital, Academic Administration Bill Kanine: CMU Board of Trustees Melinda Kreth: Faculty, English Language and Literature, and Chair, Academic Senate Latoya Lain: Faculty, School of Music Paul Natke: Chairperson, Economics Peter Ross: Vice Provost, Academic Development Sheila Roupe: Recording Secretary, College of Education and Human Services Lawrence Sych: Faculty, Political Science and Public Administration
OAPC 2.0 Purpose and Charges The original twelve members of the OAPC agreed to continue working on OAPC 2.0. Based on the recommendations from the OAPC, it was determined that four subgroups would be created to work on specific issues. The subgroups were:
1. Education and Preparation 2. Student Needs 3. Market Analysis 4. Structural
An additional twenty-eight members of the university community were asked to serve with the original twelve members on the four subgroups. The full membership of OAPC 2.0 included faculty, staff, administrator, students and a member of the Board of Trustees. Eight of the new members were selected for participation by the Academic Senate.
1. Education and Preparation (OAPC Ed Prep Group) Purpose and Charges
a. The purpose of this group is to work in concert with CMU experts to develop an innovative, ongoing and sustainable education and preparation plan that prepares faculty to employ best practices for eLearning.
b. The group will develop and seek to launch initiatives that will take affect during the 2016-17 academic year.
4
c. By the beginning of the fall semester a comprehensive plan will be submitted to theOAPC 2.0 committee.
d. The group will develop a budget of needed resources for this plan.
2. Student Needs (OAPC Student Group) Purpose and Chargesa. The purpose of this group is to examine the different needs of traditional, non-
traditional, professional and off campus student populations and the support servicesthe various populations require.
b. The group will expand on the work already conducted by the CARRS staff to target theneeds of current and future students.
c. The committee will include student members and seek input from various studentconstituencies.
3. Market Analysis (OAPC Market Group) Purpose and Chargesa. The purpose of this group is to look at market trends related to online education,
identify potential program enhancements at CMU and communicate theseopportunities to the university community.
b. This group will work with OIR and conduct a capacity analysis, program and studentneeds assessment of current market conditions. Groups 2 and 3 will work together toensure efforts aren't duplicated with regard to student needs.
4. Structural Analysis (OAPC Structure Group) Purpose and Chargesa. The purpose of this group is to examine the administrative processes related to online
course/program development and delivery, and identify areas where improvements canbe made e.g. curriculum approval, course development, staffing, etc.
b. The group will make specific recommendations for short and long term changes toimprove administrative online development and delivery that will ensure CMUcontinues to provide high quality courses and programs in every format.
c. The group will seek input from a wide-range of CMU stakeholders to ensure thatrecommendations meet the needs and expectations of the greater university.
Process and Communication The OAPC 2.0 project started with a meeting of the full membership on April 14th, 2016. Introductions were made, subgroup charges were presented, and subgroup chairs were chosen. For the rest of the spring, summer, and into the fall, the subgroups met regularly and provided updates to the core committee, which met every three weeks. The full membership met again on September 8th, 2016 to provide a progress report. For each of the subgroup recommendations, OAPC 2.0 employed a two-stage approval process. First, subgroups developed, vetted and approved their recommendations. Approved, subgroup recommendations were then submitted to the core committee for review and approval. Recommendations approved at both levels were included in the final reports. Final subgroup reports were submitted the first week of November, 2016.
Progress of the committee and subgroups was communicated to the university community via video, presentations to the Academic Senate, Trustee-Faculty Liaison Committee, Board of Trustees, Council of Chairs, and Our CMU. Committee minutes and documents were also made available online via the OAPC webpage. Finally, President Ross received monthly updates on the progress of the committee by OAPC Chairs, Pehrsson and Patton.
5
Summary of Recommendations
Education and Preparation Subgroup
Recommendation Responsible CMU body Current Status
1. Fund two new positions
Instructional Designer
Project Coordination/Management
Convert one existing position from soft-funded to base-funded
Media Production
Academic Affairs, Provost’s Office and Academic Development
Position request in review. Budget submitted. Revised responsibilities of individuals working within the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning to create a support structure to free designers & media production specialists for work with faculty.
2. Fund Professional Development:
eLearning Portal,
Symposium costs,
Faculty Cohort Training Program
Academic Affairs, Provost’s Office and Academic Development
Developing eLearning Portal, Online Course Development Cohort Model & eLearning Symposium Plan
Student Needs
Recommendation Responsible CMU body Current Status
1. Develop/implement an orientation program for students with limited online experience.
Academic Affairs, Enrollment and Student Services (Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) and Center for Student Success)
Submitted recommendation to responsible CMU body.
2. Offer additional tools for faculty/staff/students that can be accessed directly in Blackboard.
Academic Affairs (CETL) and Academic Development
Submitted recommendation to responsible CMU body.
3. Disabilities Services develop programs for faculty and staff for inclusive access.
Disability Services Submitted recommendation to responsible CMU body.
4. Update ADA compliance and inform campus community.
Disability Services Submitted recommendation to responsible CMU body.
6
5. Leaders in resource centers contact OIR to further analyze results and develop action steps.
Library Research and Instruction Services, Student Disability Services, the Writing Center, the Mathematics Assistance Center, Counseling and Mental Health Services, Career Services, and the Veteran's Resource Center
Submitted request letter to resource centers as identified in survey.
6. President, Provost, Senior Leadership, faculty to determine mix of eLearning/traditional programs to meet student demand in accordance with university strategic planning initiatives.
Senior Leadership, Strategic Planning Committee
Submitted request letter to the President and President’s Cabinet.
Market Analysis
Recommendation Responsible CMU body Current Status
1. Fund one additional position:
Market Analyst
Academic Affairs, Provost’s Office and Academic Development
Position request in review. Budget submitted.
2. Develop an Online Program Analysis Process and Model to support current APC submission process and provide data points, current market conditions, resources, and potential for success.
Academic Affairs, Provost’s Office, Academic Development, and Academic Planning Council
Developed, piloted, and moving towards implementation.
3. Provide additional funding for University Communications to support marketing new or existing face-to-face programs offered online.
University Communications and Finance and Administrative Services
Submitted recommendation to responsible CMU body.
4. Academic units develop online programs identified in the report if feasible.
Academic Affairs Submitted recommendation to responsible CMU body.
7
5. Explore feasibility of new hybrid and new content via online (e.g. competency-based, stackable credentials, badges, micro-credentials).
Academic Affairs Submitted recommendation to responsible CMU body.
Structural Analysis
Recommendation Responsible CMU body Current Status
1. Remove language related to delivery from MCS process as defined by the CAD.
Academic Senate (AS)
Presented to AS (11/1/2016). Academic Senate voted to not approve, 11/29/2016
2. Delivery mode, dates, times required for synchronous activities, must be communicated to students, for all courses, through the online registration and scheduling system.
Registrar, the Office of Information Technology (OIT), Academic Units and College
Recommendation shared with Registrar who will work with OIT to develop system to support info. Once functional, academic units/colleges will ensure detailed scheduling info is included for synchronous online/hybrid courses.
3. Update bulletin regarding course offering mode. Rationale: Current/proposed practices for online/hybrid courses are not accurately described in “distance learning” language currently found in UG and Grad bulletins.
Provost’s Office and the Office of Academic Effectiveness
Recommendations for UG/Grad bulletins shared with Provost and Office of Academic Effectiveness in Fall 2016.
4. Update definitions of courses based on delivery, and student/instructor interaction. Insert new delivery mode definitions alphabetically within CAD Glossary, Face-to-Face, Hybrid, Online Synchronous and Online Asynchronous.
Academic Senate (AS)
Presented to AS 11/1/2016. AS voted to adopt recommended definitions with minor edits. Edits made.
8
5. OAPC Education & Preparation Subgroup is recommended to work with CETL to ensure improved communication and collaboration between CETL, faculty, and departments regarding options available for online/hybrid course development.
OAPC Education and Preparation Subgroup, Office of the Provost, and Academic Development
Shared with Education Prep Subgroup, and the Vice Provost of Academic Development.
6. Control/responsibility for online/hybrid courses rests with academic units/colleges. Considerations: developing/reviewing materials; course caps; scheduling courses (not distance F2F/hybrid); deciding load assignments; recruiting, approving, assessing PT faculty; deciding frequency of course revisions/updates & work assignments.
Office of the Provost, Enrollment and Student Services (ESS), Academic Units and Colleges
Shared with President, Provost, ESS VP. Upon final approval, ESS, Provost and COD will develop a transition plan that ensures students are not negatively impacted.
7. OIT & Registrar, will provide an electronic scheduling/registration system so academic units can schedule tentative course offerings 2 yrs. ahead; schedule on-campus rooms for full year; schedule instructors for a full year; permit students to register for a full year.
Office of the Provost, Enrollment and Student Services, Office of Informational Technology, the Registrar
Recommendation shared with Registrar who is currently reviewing potential systems. Registrar will work with Office of Institutional Research to purchase or create system. Once functional, staff will undergo training.
8. Terms/conditions for course development/revision are presently incorporated in the agreement between the CMU Administration and the Faculty Association. These key aspects of employment reflect the balance between investment in new opportunities and stewardship of tuition dollars. Parties should continue discussing these terms/conditions at upcoming collective bargaining.
Faculty Personnel Services, Faculty Association and Union of Teaching Faculty
Recommendation shared with Faculty Personnel Services Executive Director and the Faculty Association President.
9
9. In order to remove perceived barriers and assist in the development/delivery of online/hybrid courses/programs. Review online/satellite sites cost centers (i.e. 31XXX) for potential consolidation (i.e. 21XXX). Current needs must be fulfilled with any consolidation.
Academic Administration, Accounting Services, Financial Planning and Budgets, Student Account Services and University Billing, Institutional Research, the Registrar, Office of the Provost.
Recommendation will be shared with listed departments with publication of final report.
10. Remove inconsistent/outdated policy from CMU’s website. Recommend deletion of current Academic Senate Policy-Distance Learning Standards & Guidelines. Rationale: last revised 2001. Many entities/processes described no longer valid. Items superseded by later documents.
Academic Senate (AS)
Presented to AS on 11/1/2016. Senate approved on 11/29/2016.
10
Education and Preparation Subgroup Report History
This subgroup was formed and given the charge of developing a plan for the education and preparation
of faculty in the area of eLearning. Specifically, we were asked to meet the following goals:
The purpose of this group is to work in concert with CMU experts to develop an innovative, ongoing and sustainable education and preparation plan that prepares faculty to employ best practices for eLearning.
The group will develop and seek to launch initiatives that will take affect during the 2016-17 academic year.
By the beginning of the fall semester a comprehensive plan will be submitted to the OAPC 2.0 committee.
The group will develop a budget of needed resources for this plan.
Membership
Co-Leader: Kathryn Dirkin: Faculty, Teacher Education and Professional Development
Co-Leader: Jeremy Bond: Interim Director, eLearning, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Stephanie Bechtel: Director, Faculty Support and Assessment, Academic Development
Bill Kanine: CMU Board of Trustees
Anil Kumar: Chair, Entrepreneurship
Michael Mamp: Faculty, Human Environmental Studies
Diane Marble: Interim Director, Teaching and Learning, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Tim Peters: Interim Associate Dean, CMU Libraries
Leela Rakesh: Faculty, Mathematics
Marnie Roestel: Manager, eLearning Delivery and Support, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Laura Thompson: Faculty, Libraries
Plan of Action
In our initial stages we gathered information to determine needs and existing resources. After a
determination was made that we needed cohesive resources for professional development offered in
multiple formats at various levels we decided on a three pronged approach. To this end we have
developed three initiatives that we are recommending to the OAPC 2.0 committee. They include:
University eLearning Portal (Appendix A)
Online Course Development Cohort Model (Appendix B)
College eLearning Symposiums (Appendix C)
For each of our initiatives we will address how the specific actions taken to determine the need as well
as our findings and recommendations. The committee also recommends that the implementation of
these initiatives align with the work of the Strategic Planning Committee.
Next Steps
In an effort to pilot some of these initiatives CETL, under the guidance of Jeremy Bond, Interim Director,
eLearning, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, has reviewed and revised the responsibilities
11
of individuals working within CETL. He has created a support structure for lower-level tasks in order to
give instructional designers and media production specialists time to work with additional faculty. Once
responsibilities were redistributed he began a pilot of three online course development cohorts. The
next steps would involve designing a prospectus for IT to determine exact costs for the portal. Kathryn
Dirkin and Jeremy Bond would work to draft a potential framework and site map for the design of the
portal that would inform the exact request for IT. Prior to reaching out to colleges for the symposium, it
would be important to note the exact funds available.
Responsible Group Identified
As the Interim Director, eLearning, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Jeremy Bond would
lead the initiatives. Much of the work would come out of CETL.
Budget Addendum
Proposed Funding for OAPC Education and Preparation subgroup:
1. FTE Base Funding - $270,000 (3 positions)
2. Initiative One-time Funding - $ 10,000 (eLearning Portal development, software licensing, etc.)
3. Initiative Recurring Funding - $ 10,000 (2-3 eLearning Symposiums/year – presenter stipends, refreshments, materials, etc.)
4. Total: $290,000
Positions Included in FTE Base Funding: Please note that these three positions will provide support in all three areas proposed by the Education and Preparation committee. The Instructional Designer will support cohorts as well as current and future needs for course creation and revision. They will also be needed to create online PD resources for faculty. The New Project Coordination/Management position will be key to coordinating the work of all three solutions for faculty and staff preparation. They will need to oversee updates and changes to the ePortal, coordinate both the course development cohorts and symposiums. Having someone in this position will not only ensure that resources are allocated appropriately but they will also be in charge of making sure they are disseminated effectively. The Media Production position is a base-funding request for an existing soft-funded position. The position will support cohorts as well as current and future needs for course creation and revision. They will also be needed to create online PD resources for faculty. We further recommend, based on the alignment of the function and nature of these positions with existing Academic Development staff roles and responsibilities that the funding for all proposed positions be assigned to appropriate exiting Academic Development departments (e.g. CETL). One-time funds (for development of the eLearning portal) and recurring funding (to facilitate symposium-related costs), should likewise be assigned to Academic Development unit accounts, as it is staff within this group which will be charged with ongoing duties relating to the portal and symposiums.
12
Student Needs Subgroup Report
History
The Student Needs Subgroup was convened in April of 2016 to address the follow up work
recommended by the OAPC 1.0. This subgroup consists of several original 1.0 members, academic
senate appointed campus community individuals as well as undergraduate and graduate students. The
committee was asked to focus on the following goals:
Examine the different needs of traditional, non-traditional, professional and off-campus student populations and the support services the various populations require.
Expand upon the work already conducted by the CARRS staff to target the needs of current and future students.
Include student members and seek input from various student constituencies.
Membership
Co-Leader: Jeff Betts: Faculty and Chairperson, School of Health Sciences
Co-Leader: Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson: Dean, College of Education and Human Services
Alternate Co-Leader: Jane Mills: Director, Global Campus Student Operations, Student Services and Enrollment Management
Renee Babcock: Faculty, Psychology
Jazmin Bierat: Student Government Association representative
Donald Friesner: Enrollment Analyst, Research and Planning
Jon Humiston: Doctoral Candidate, Special Assistant to Provost, Provost’s Office
Tammi Kolski: Doctoral Candidate and Fixed Term Faculty
Latoya Lain: Faculty, School of Music
Sheila Roupe: Recording Secretary and Student
Calvin Seelye: Director, Events and Conference Services
Gina Umpstead: Faculty, Educational Leadership
Kirk Yats: Director, Scholarships and Financial Aid
The group met regularly every three weeks on Tuesday afternoon from April through November 2016. The group reviewed national findings and the OAPC 1.0 reports. The group also developed, piloted, advertised and launched a student survey. A list of recommendations emerged. Participation by the group produced robust discussions and thoughtful outcomes.
Plan of Action The group developed a plan of action which included consultations with the Center for Assessment and Rural Research Expert (Dr. Mary Senter) and the CMU Institutional Research Department Professionals (Dr. Robert Roe). Additional members were added to the group to include undergraduate and graduate students. Survey development was extensive and included a campaign for marketing the survey in order to reach as many students as possible in the general population. The group wanted to build upon the initial work completed last fall by Dr. Senter and her team. Further, the group wanted to give all CMU students an opportunity to provide input regarding their learning needs as these relate to eLearning at CMU. In July/August, a pilot survey was conducted through the Events and Conference Services Department led by Cal Seeley. The final survey was refined incorporating the pilot group feedback. A marketing campaign was created working with several offices and staff across campus to get the word
13
out and bolster participation for both on-campus, off-campus and solely eLearning students. Incentives were provided by the President’s office.
Building upon Prior Reports/Findings Survey Development: As of 2014, 5.8 million or over one-quarter (28%) of college students nationally report taking at least some of their college courses online. Public colleges and universities have the largest numbers of students taking their courses online (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2015). Initial research reveals that retention rates for students at four year institutions enrolling in various program configurations (online, blended, or seated classrooms) is the same (James, Swan & Daston, 2016).
Student engagement in and satisfaction with online courses affects their learning outcomes. Student
perception of online course quality is improving over time (Seirup, Tirotta, & Blue, 2016). Students
approach learning in one of two ways in online environments: by being avid support seekers or self-
sufficient learners. Avid support seekers (25% of students) use the resources provided and regularly
connect with other students online. Self-sufficient learners (75% of students) do not frequent campus or
regularly interact with fellow students (Brown, Hughes, Keppell, Hard, & Smith, 2015). Student
satisfaction with online learning and improved learning outcomes are associated with dialog between
students and their professors and also between students and their peers, effective online instruction,
and course design (Eom & Ashill, 2016). As student enrollment in online education increases, it is
important for CMU to explore the needs and experiences of students in the online environment. Access
for students with disabilities or limited abilities is an important and growing issue in higher education
today, including from a perspective of being in compliance with the ADA (Straumsheim, C., 2016).
In light of the research on national trends in online education and the committee’s charge to examine
the academic and support service needs of the various student populations at CMU, the Student Needs
subcommittee investigated student opinions regarding online education to determine the needs and
experiences of various student populations at CMU. We surveyed students about how they made
choices about online enrollment, their satisfaction with online course offerings, configuration,
instruction, and support services at CMU. We also asked students to tell us about their experiences
while taking online courses, keys to their success, and how much they felt they were a part of the CMU
community.
CMU Student Survey
The survey was sent to the 24,085 CMU students who were registered for a fall semester 2016 course,
and 6,710 students completed the survey for a 27.9% response rate. 5144 valid responses were from
undergraduate students, and 1566 valid responses were from graduate students.
Findings
Strengths of CMU’s online programs:
Nearly half (47%) of respondents have taken at least one online course at CMU. A quarter (25%) of graduate students have taken all of their graduate courses online. Graduate students rate their satisfaction with online courses as high (3.25/4.0) in various
categories related to course delivery. All students reported being well supported when they use the Technology Help Desk (90%),
Global Campus Library Services (89%), and the Writing Center (88%). This held true for both
14
traditional and nontraditional students. Traditional students also noted great support from the Mathematics Assistance Center.
Global Campus Unit Strengths: The results of the survey revealed several areas in which the University through its Global
division has excelled in supporting students who have chosen to take online courses. Most students who have taken online courses (which includes those students who have taken less than half of all coursework online, more than half of all coursework online, and all coursework online) expressed that they felt as though they are part of the CMU community. The majority of these students, at both the undergraduate and graduate level, indicated overall satisfaction with the online learning environment. Reasons for such high levels of satisfaction include: the pace of online courses, the condensed format, and the fact that online courses fit the lifestyle and personal needs of CMU students. In addition to the overall experience in taking online classes, students also expressed satisfaction with a number of online resources available to them, such as the Technology Help Desk, Global Campus Library Services, Writing Center, Math Assistance Center, and Career Services.
Challenges for CMU online programs:
A majority of both undergraduate and graduate students who have not taken online courses indicate that they prefer the organization, as well as the interaction with students and instructors, of traditional face-to-face courses.
Awareness of availability of online courses or no online courses were offered in their program supported reasons offered by students for not taking online courses.
Except for the Student Ombuds office (73%), many students did not report being aware of other specialized support offices on campus (see Appendix D).
Feeling part of the CMU community was reported by only 58% of the respondents. The survey did not define what the word ‘community’ meant.
Additional key points from the survey:
Students most often decided to enroll in online classes because of how the courses fit into their lifestyle (78%), the shorter course format (70%), and the courses’ pace (69%).
Students reported being successful in their online classes when they set aside additional time for coursework (34%), stayed in communication with their instructors (27%), stayed in communication with fellow students (16%), and used on-campus resources (10%). Few students reported utilizing CMU’s Online Ally (2%) or virtual office hours (3%).
Students requested online courses in several different programs in the survey. The top undergraduate program requests included nursing, education, accounting, business, and social work. The top graduate program requests included psychology, nursing, counseling, and occupational therapy.
When asked why students had not taken an online course, several categories of responses emerged including concerns about the online setting due to: lack of discipline and lack of self-motivation to be successful in an online learning
environment; the idea that the quality of the learning was not as good as in face-to-face classes due to
course structure, inflexible participation requirements, and less interaction with faculty; limitations placed on students by scholarships, home institutions, or parents.
15
Findings A detailed Survey Analysis is provided in Appendix D. The survey found that CMU has many strengths with regard to distance and online teaching and can therefore, build upon these assets. CMU has a large base of students who have already taken online courses, particularly in graduate programs. There is a high level of student satisfaction with key support services such as the Library, the Writing Center and the Technology Help Desk. Recommendations
Consider factors students identified as being important to their decision to enroll--the courses fitting student lifestyle needs, the shorter format, and the pace--when developing new online programs (refer to the recommendations in the Structure Subgroup report).
Identify ways to increase student supports to overcome barriers to enrolling in online programs (refer to the recommendations in the Structure Subgroup report).
New undergraduate and graduate program requests should be referred to or generated from specific academic colleges. College personnel/faculty can find additional support from the new Academic Development unit for a Market Analysis of program needs.
Academic Deans and Department Chairs should identify and implement pro-active measures to address the course scheduling and staffing aspects of alternate delivery formats and locations, online or distant locations.
The Office of Student Disabilities Services should develop a training program for faculty regarding best practices for student access within online learning environments.
The Office of Student Disabilities Services should update and develop a university process for reviewing ADA compliance and communicate this to the campus community.
Academic Affairs, Enrollment and Student Services (CETL and Center for Student Success) or best appropriate unit should develop and implement a best practices eLearning orientation program for students who have not taken an online course before. This is to address the high no credit (withdrawal or failure) rate for first time online students.
The Center for Student Success and CETL professionals need to communicate and assist faculty and staff so they are aware of and emphasize the student success support available in the eLearning/online environment through multiple modes of communication. Specifically, it is recommended these services be highlighted and made readily available within the Blackboard environment.
The CMU resource centers that are mentioned in this report should contact CMU Institutional Research to further analyze the results of the survey to support their efforts to best meet student needs. These include: o Library Research and Instruction Services, o Student Disability Services, o The Writing Center, o The Mathematics Assistance Center, o Counseling and Mental Health Services, o Career Services, and o The Veteran's Resource Center
The President, Senior Leadership and the university community should further examine and determine what mix of eLearning, online, innovative and traditional on campus programs should be made available in future years, this needs to be accomplished in accordance with the university strategic plan. Support and resources need to follow accordingly. This needs to be developed in concert with academic deans and college faculty leaders who will help champion these questions within their colleges.
16
Next steps
• Share the information with the appropriate stakeholders/partners to stimulate discussions on how to facilitate improvements in delivering quality courses to students in online formats.
• Allow the centers and service units who may benefit from further data mining of the survey results to access the data with assistance of the OIR staff.
• Encourage the academic units, colleges and departments, to work with Academic Development, CETL, and other resources at CMU in developing quality online, hybrid and distance course offerings and programs for CMU students.
Budget Required/Used Incentives for the survey participants included an Apple iPad 4 and Apple MacBook Pro (total purchase was approximately $2500) approved by the Provost/President’s office. The prizes were awarded as advertised.
Bibliography Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut. T. T., (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/survey_report/2015-online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states/.
Brown, M., Hughes, H., Keppell, M., Hard, N., & Smith, L., (2015). Stories from students in their first
semester of distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 16(4), 1-17.
Central Michigan University, (2016). Results of the Online Academic Program Committee, Student Needs
Subgroup Survey Report. Mt. Pleasant, MI.
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N., (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and
satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal, 14(3), 185-215.
James, S., Swan, K. & Daston, C., (2016). Retention, progression and the taking of online courses. Online
Learning, 20(20). Retrieved from
http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/780
Meyer, K. A., (2014). An Analysis of the Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Faculty Development for Online
Teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1).
Meyer, K. A., & Murrell, V. S., (2014). A National Study of Training Content and Activities for Faculty
Development for Online Teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1).
Reilly, J., Vandenhouten, C., Gallagher-Lepak, S., & Ralston-Berg, P., (2012). Faculty Development for E-
Learning: A Multi-Campus Community of Practice (COP) Approach. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 16(2), 99-110.
17
Seirup, H. Tirotta, R, & Blue, E., (2016). Online education: Panacea or plateau. Journal for Leadership
Education and Instruction, Spring, 5-8.
Straumsheim, C., (2016). New Era for Disability Rights, Inside Higher Ed., November 7, 2016. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/07/disability-rights-advocates-shift-
strategies-ensure-equal-rights-digital-age
18
Market Analysis Subgroup Report
History The Online Academic Program Committee’s (OAPC) original report recommended CMU “Develop additional programs that are market competitive and also provide support for enhancing such existing programs”. The Market Analysis Subgroup was formed to follow-up on this recommendation. The subgroup was given the following charge:
1. The purpose of this group is to look at market trends related to online education, identify potential program enhancements at CMU and communicate these opportunities to the university community.
2. This group will work with OIR and conduct a capacity analysis, program and student needs assessment of current market conditions. Groups 2 and 3 will work together to ensure efforts aren't duplicated with regard to student needs.
Membership
Co-Leader: Paul Natke: Chairperson, Economics
Co-Leader: Pete Ross: Vice Provost, Academic Development
Katherine Davis: Assistant Director, Integrated Marketing, University Communications
Deborah Gray: Faculty, Marketing and Hospitality Services Administration Management
Betty Gillespie, Recording Secretary, Academic Development
Jody Hassen: Executive Director, Off Campus Student Services, Student Services and Enrollment Management
Fred Kaiser: Associate Director, External Sales and Marketing, Public Sector and Business Outreach
Maureen MacGillivray: Faculty, Human Environmental Studies
Kaleb Patrick: Fixed-term Faculty, Education Leadership and Teacher Education and Professional Development Departments
Robert Roe: Executive Director, Institutional Research
Anthony Sapienza: Associate Director, Marketing and Sales Online and International Programs, External Marketing and Sales
Plan of Action At the initial meeting of the subgroup, it was determined the best way to meet the subgroup’s charge was to focus on the following goals:
1. Provide all members with an overview of the current state and trends in online learning. 2. Develop a process whereby online programs could be evaluated to determine their potential
success at helping CMU achieve its mission of providing a “student-centered education” that fosters “personal and intellectual growth to prepare students for productive careers, meaningful lives, and responsible citizenship in a global society”.
3. Pilot the process to evaluate the potential success of specific academic programs. 4. Explore new online program opportunities.
The subgroup met 11 times between mid-April and mid-November 2016.
19
Current State of Online Learning Foundational information and data on current trends in online learning can be found on the OAPC website – https://www.cmich.edu/colleges/ehs/Pages/onlineacademics.aspx - and on p.13 of the original OAPC report. However, below is a recap and update of important information:
Higher Education
In fall 2016, 20.5 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities(National Center for Education Statistics, 2016).
5.8 Million (28%) of students are taking online courses. 49% are taking all courses online and51% are taking at least some, but not all, courses online (Allen et. al, 2016).
One-in-seven (2.8 Million or 14%) of all students are getting their degree completely online. Halfof the students who are getting their degree online are doing so in public institutions (Allen et.al, 2016).
Of the overall student population, students earning their degree completely online represent agrowing segment of students (Allen et. al, 2016).
Enrollment Trends
While higher education enrollments overall have decreased, online enrollments are expected to
grow by roughly 1-4% year over year through 2020 (Aslanian, 2015; Allen et. al, 2016).
Online enrollments continue to grow, even in the face of declining overall enrollments (Allen, et.al, 2016).
2.8 Million or 14% of all students are getting their degree completely online (Allen, et. al, 2016). Half of the students who are getting their degrees online are doing so in public institutions
(Allen, et. al, 2016). Public institutions command the largest portion of online students (Allen, et. al, 2016). Online enrollment growth can be attributed to the increased acceptance and flexibility of online
degrees (Aslanian, 2015; Allen, et. al, 2016).
Strategic Planning
63% of chief academic leaders feel online learning is critical to their institution’s long-termstrategy (Allen, et. al, 2016).
Those institutions who have the lion's share of online enrollments all report significant inclusionin their institution’s formal strategic plan (Allen, et. al, 2016).
The percent of academic leaders rating the learning outcomes in online education as the sameor superior to those in face-to-face instruction was 71.4% in 2015 - higher than the 57.2% rate in2003 (Allen, et. al, 2016, p).
Faculty at institutions with larger numbers of online students are more accepting of onlineeducation (Aslanian, 2015).
Student Characteristics
60% of online students select their program of study first followed by which institution they willattend (Aslanian, 2015).
80% of online students live within 100 miles of a campus or service center of the institution theyattend (CollegeAtlas.org, 2016).
52% of students choose to enroll in a fully-online program offered by an institution locatedwithin 50 miles of their home (Aslanian, 2015).
20
53% of students taking exclusively online courses reside in the same state as the institution they are attending (Aslanian, 2015).
Affordability, reputation as a high-quality institution, convenience, and flexible pacing are the top areas of influence in selecting an online program (Aslanian, 2015).
64% of online students are enrolled in formal degree programs and 36% are enrolled in non-degree programs (Aslanian, 2015).
Barriers to Online Education
Only 29.1% of chief academic officers believe their faculty accept the value and legitimacy of online education (Allen, et. al, 2016).
Bibliography Allen, et al., (2016). “Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States,” Babson
Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf last accessed September 9, 2016.
Aslanian Market Research Group, (2015). “Online Student Needs, Preferences and Expectations,” http://www.learninghouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OnlineCollegeStudents2015.pdf, last accessed September 9, 2016.
Best Colleges 2015 Online Learning Survey. http://www.bestcolleges.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-
Online-Student-Needs-Preferences-and-Expectations.pdf, last accessed September 9, 2016. National Center for Education Statistics, (2016). “Fast Facts,”
(http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372), last accessed September 9, 2016. CollegeAtlas.org, (2016). “41 Facts About Online Students,”http://www.collegeatlas.org/41-surprising-
facts-about-online-students.html, last accessed September 9, 2016. Online Program Analysis Process and Model The subgroup developed an Online Program Analysis Process and an Online Program Analysis Model to gather and analyze specific data points related to online program development and delivery. The aim of the Process and the Model is to inform key decision-makers on the potential success of an online program.
The Online Program Analysis Process is utilized to gather information and data in support of the Academic Planning Council’s new program submission process and/or for support of moving existing programs into an online delivery format. The Online Program Analysis Process includes the gathering and synthesis of data points both external and internal to CMU to assess current market conditions, available resources, and enrollment potential for specific academic programs. The Online Program Analysis Process consists of five steps:
1. Initiator (e.g. faculty member, department, interdisciplinary council, college, and/or staff member) schedules a consultation with the Academic and Professional Programs (APP) area of the Office of Academic Development to discuss the proposed program. Discussion is initiated by completing a web form available on the Provost’s website under Academic Development. Upon receipt, APP will contact the initiator to arrange a consultation session.
21
2. Initiator should reference the Consultation Session Guide in preparation for the consultation session. The guide provides an overview of the type of information APP will need to know about the proposed program to facilitate effective and efficient analysis.
3. Consultation session. 4. Based on the information gathered during the consultation session, APP utilizes the Online
Program Analysis Model (see below) to gather and analyze specific data points related to the enrollment potential of the online program.
5. A final report is provided to the initiator, and other stakeholders, outlining the outcomes of the analysis to inform the overall decision-making process regarding the development and delivery of the proposed online program.
The purpose of the Online Program Analysis Model is to identify specific data points to be used to inform immediate stakeholders, and members of the wider university community, as to the potential success of an academic program to be delivered in an online format. The Model is not intended to determine whether a program should be delivered in an online format; rather, it is to be used to guide and inform the overall decision-making process. The internal data points should be used in tandem with the external data points to provide a foundation for estimating program sustainability and success.
The Online Program Analysis Model consists of the following data points:
External Data Points
Demand = Bureau of Labor Statistics (data acquired through EDEPS http://www.edeps.org/) o Total number of projected jobs in the field o Projected percentage increase, or decrease, in the field o Broken down into National, Great Lakes Region, State of Michigan (or other priority
States)
Supply = IPEDS (data acquired through EDEPS http://www.edeps.org/) o Total number of graduates within the discipline o Percentage increase, or decrease, in the field
Competition = Degree Programs o Total number of degree programs currently offered in the discipline o Total number of degree programs currently offered online in the discipline
Job Posting Analysis
External Validation o Does the program lead to a license required for working in the field of study? o Does the program lead to the completion of industry-recognized certifications? o Does the program pursue, or already hold, specialized accreditation?
Federal Financial Aid o Does the program qualify? o If not, should an application be made?
State Licensure and Authorization o Does the program need specialized licensure?
Internal Data Points
Program Resources o Specialized software/hardware fees o Program/course development fees o Specialized accreditation fees
22
o Faculty lines, release time etc. o Marketing costs for initial and continued recruitment
Department Capacity Capacity can be measured with student enrollment relative to Full Time Equivalent (FTE) teaching. Student enrollment is measured with Fiscal Year Equated Students (FYES) that takes into account differences in Student Credit Hours (SCH) taken by undergraduates, masters, and doctoral level students. Several CMU Office of Institutional Research reports provide this data and include the ratio of FYES to FTE for a number of years: https://team.cmich.edu/sites/ir/FYES%20FTE%20Teaching%20Ratios/Forms/AllItems.aspx https://team.cmich.edu/sites/ir/Department%20Budget%20Dashboards/Forms/AllItems.aspx.
Proposed Tuition Rate o Military rate? o Veterans rate? o Specialty rate?
Longevity/Sustainability o Does the program have an anticipated “shelf life” to meet a specific demand? o Does the program intend to exist in perpetuity?
Department/College Supplemental Information/Data o Disciplinary Knowledge o Interviews o Focus groups o Surveys
Program Competition o Didactic vs. Experience requirements o Curriculum
Articulations/Partnerships (high schools, community colleges, corporations, organizations) o Are there existing opportunities or partnerships? o Are there potential opportunities or partnerships? o Tuition discounts?
When the Online Program Analysis Process and Online Program Analysis Model are used together they provide a comprehensive view of the potential success of a new online program or the conversion of an existing face-to-face program that will be developed in an online format.
Online Program Analysis Process and Model Pilot To test the Online Program Analysis Process and Model’s usefulness in helping analyze and assess the potential enrollment success of online programs, the Process and Model were piloted four times during the late summer and early fall of 2016. The programs analyzed were:
Undergraduate Major in Fashion Merchandising and Design.
Undergraduate Major in Early Childhood Development.
Master’s degree in Entrepreneurial Transactions.
Master in Public Administration.
Based on the outcomes of the pilot application, the Online Program Analysis Process and Online Program Analysis Model have now been adopted by the Academic Development unit to assess the
23
potential success of future online programs at CMU. The intention is to use the Process and Model not only to analyze online programs, but also face-to-face and hybrid programs aimed for delivery on CMU’s main campus or at a satellite location. Online Program and Course Opportunities To determining which online programs were most in demand, information from three specific sources was utilized:
OAPC 2.0 Student Survey Results o The OAPC Student Needs Subgroup surveyed over 6,500 students on various aspects of
online education. One of the questions asked which undergraduate and graduate programs respondents wanted to see offered online. A total of 385 students responded with undergraduate program requests and 239 with graduate program requests.
CMU Missed Opportunity Reports o When a potential student expresses interest in a program at CMU that is not currently
available, the information is documented in the Customer Relationship Management system. This inquiry is then considered a “missed opportunity” for CMU. This information is provided on demand or when the New Student Services team observes trending in requests. When or if the program becomes available, the missed opportunity inquiries are informed the program is now available.
CMU Digital Marketing Data o According to a 2015 report, up to 59% of prospective or currently enrolled college
students utilized a search engine when conducting research about going to college (Rachel, et al., 2015). Google’s search engine appears to be the top choice amongst all individuals with a total US search market share of 63.8% (comScore qSearch, 2016). As a result, consumer insight and potential marketplace demand for new online programs may be gained by analyzing search query data trends conducted through Google’s Search Engine. Average monthly search volume data was gathered utilizing Google's Keyword Planning tool and represents a forecast of monthly search queries through Google's Search Engine. The geo-location is for the United States only and the average monthly search volume represents a bird's eye view of holistic search queries. In other words, relevant keywords will represent degree programs at any level and will include search queries that incorporate both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Average monthly searches are defined as the average number of searches for this keyword and its close variants based on targeting settings selected. While competition is defined as the number of advertisers showing on each keyword relative to all keywords across Google. This data is specific to the locations and Search Network targeting option that was selected. When combined this information generates the following rating scale:
Rank Average Monthly Search Volume
High 8001+
Medium High 6001 – 8000
Medium 4001 – 6000
Medium Low 2001 – 4000
Low 0 - 2000
24
Bibliography C. Zhang, et al., (2012). “A Study on Correlation between Web Search Data and CPI”
https://books.google.com/books?id=scPw_74PiIoC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=consumer+demand+through+search+data&source=bl&ots=tLwE94aheU&sig=XnJ26gTJ1IoVT37dngCbB9OvLxc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv072VnvTPAhXr5YMKHZNQDTgQ6AEITDAF#v=onepage&q=consumer%20demand%20through%20search%20data&f=false
Rachel, et al., (2015). “Searching for the Right College” https://na-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Searching_for_the_Right_College.pdf. comScore qSearch (2016). “2016 U.S. Desktop Search Engine Rankings”
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings/comScore-Releases-February-2016-US-Desktop-Search-Engine-Rankings.
Outcomes Online Program Analysis Process and Online Program Analysis Model As outlined previously, one of the major outcomes of the subgroups’s discussions is the development of the Online Program Analysis Process and Online Program Analysis Model. Information on both the Process and Model can be found at: https://www.cmich.edu/office_provost/academic_development/Pages/getstarted.aspx The Academic Development unit has adopted both the Process and Model as the primary methods through which to gather information and data to assess a program’s potential success. So far these processes have been utilized four times to assess programs (including one program that was discussed by the Academic Planning Council) and another six programs are in various stages of the Process. Online Program Opportunities As outlined above, various sources were utilized to generate a list of potential new online programs to be offered by CMU. These programs are broken into three broad categories:
1. Programs currently at CMU – These are both undergraduate and graduate programs currently offered by CMU in a face-to-face format that should also be delivered in an online format.
2. Programs currently not offered at CMU, but could reside in an existing department – these are programs that would be new to CMU, but fit within a current academic department or college.
3. Programs currently not offered at CMU, but could fit within a College.
Each broad category is used to present specific undergraduate and graduate programs that should be delivered online. These programs are subsequently clustered around five major disciplinary areas: Business, Education, Health, Information Technology, and Other. The programs are presented in Appendix E - New Online Program Opportunities. It should be noted that the list provided is not a definitive list and departments, schools, interdisciplinary councils, and colleges should utilize the services of the Academic Development unit to explore the viability of offering other programs online. The focus should be on programs that have a potential substantial student population rather than a limited or niche target audience.
25
Online Course Opportunities The committee expanded the scope of its charge to include an examination of courses that should be developed for online delivery. The primary rationale for this expansion of scope is whenever an undergraduate major is available for online delivery there is also demand for General Education, University Program, and/or General Elective courses too. The reason being that most majors are 36 to 49 credit hours, but 124 credit hours are needed for graduation; thus the more majors offered online the more the demand for University Program, General Education, and General Elective courses. Similarly, there is a shortage of Writing Intensive (WI) courses available in an online format to support current demand; this will only increase as more majors are moved online. An initial list of courses to be moved online to support online major expansion is included in Appendix F – Courses for Online Development. Recommendations The subgroup makes the following recommendations:
1. The Online Program Analysis Process and Online Program Analysis Model be utilized to assess the potential viability and success of:
a. All new academic programs regardless of format or location of delivery. b. All programs currently offered face-to-face that will be offered in an online or hybrid
delivery format. c. Existing programs going through CMU’s Program Review process (once adequate staff
resources are available). 2. Funds should be provided to the Academic Development unit to create a full-time staff position
to facilitate the application of the Online Program Analysis Process and Online Program Analysis Model.
3. Funds should be provided to the Center for Instructional Design (a unit within the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning – part of the Academic Development unit) to facilitate the development of additional programs and courses for online delivery. Funding should be available for:
a. An additional Instructional Designer to provide support for the development of online programs and courses. * Please Note: The same recommendation for funding for an Instructional Designer position was made by the Education and Preparation subgroup.
b. Faculty compensation, per the CMU/CMUFA Agreement, for online program and course development.
4. Funds should be made available to University Communications to support the marketing of new online programs or existing face-to-face programs being delivered online.
5. Departments, schools, interdisciplinary councils, and colleges should develop and deliver online the programs outlined in this report.
6. Departments, schools, interdisciplinary councils, and colleges should develop and deliver online the courses outlined in this report.
7. The feasibility of CMU offering program content in a hybrid format (courses meet some of the time in a physical classroom on the main CMU campus or another CMU center and the rest of the instruction and coursework is completed online synchronously and/or asynchronously) should be explored in greater detail.
8. The feasibility of CMU offering program content via alternative online delivery models (e.g. competency-based programs, stackable credentials, badges, micro-credentials) should be explored in greater detail.
26
Next Steps and Responsible Group 1. Staff from the Academic Development unit should be charged with facilitating the discussions
leading to new online program and course developments. a. Focus should be on programs that can be scaled to enroll large numbers of students.
2. College Deans, with support from the Academic Development unit, should be required to work with their departments, schools, and interdisciplinary councils to develop online programs and courses.
3. Once departments, schools, and interdisciplinary councils have identified programs for online development/delivery, Academic Development will utilize the Online Program Analysis Process and Online Program Analysis Model to assess the potential enrollment success of the program.
4. The process for developing online programs and courses, as outlined in the current CMU/CMUFA Agreement, should be examined to determine if all online course development should be compensated at the current rate. For example, should compensation be provided for online course development if the course is only going to enroll main campus admitted students and be taught by the course developer as an in-load assignment?
Budget Requests 1. Academic Development unit - 1 FTE Base Funding for Academic Program Analyst = $90,000 2. Academic Development unit - 1 FTE Base Funding for Instructional Designer = $100,000 3. Center for Instructional Design (Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning) - Online Course
Development Funding - Additional base funding of $150,000 4. University Communications – Funding for marketing new programs:
a. $50,000 one-time funding for initial launch of a new online program. b. $30,000 base funding for each new online program starting with the second year of
delivery.
Positions/Initiatives
Market Analysis subgroup/OAPC 2.0 Steering Committee Approved Recommendation
1.0 FTE Base Funding: Market Analyst Position
Department: Academic and Professional Programs (Academic Development) Division: Academic Affairs Staff Salaries $ 52,000
Benefits $ 31,995
S&E $ 2,000
Total Request: $ 85,995
Education and Preparation subgroup/OAPC 2.0 Steering Committee Approved Recommendations
1.0 FTE Base Funding: Instructional Designer Position
Department: Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning/ eLearning (Academic Development) Division: Academic Affairs Staff Salaries $ 80,000
Benefits $ 49,224
S&E $ 2,000
Total Request: $ 131,224
27
1.0 FTE Base Funding: Media Productions Position
Department: Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning/ eLearning (Academic Development) Division: Academic Affairs Staff Salaries $ 48,000
Benefits $ 29,534
S&E $ 2,000
Total Request: $ 79,534
1.0 FTE Base Funding: Coordinator/eLearning Projects Position
Department: Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning/ eLearning (Academic Development) Division: Academic Affairs Staff Salaries $ 52,000
Benefits $ 31,995
S&E $ 2,000
Total Request: $ 85,955
Department: Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning/ eLearning (Academic Development) Division: Academic Affairs One-time Funding: Creation of eLearning Portal
S&E $ 10,000
Total Request: $ 10,000
28
Structural Subgroup Report
History
The Structural Subgroup was convened in April of 2016 to address the follow up work recommended by
the OAPC 1.0. This subgroup consists of faculty, administrators, and a wide representation of staff.
Membership
Co-Leader: David Patton: Interim Associate Vice President, Enrollment Management
Co-Leader: Joseph Garrison: Director, Financial Planning & Budgets
Dennis Armistead: Executive Director, Faculty Personnel Services
Shellie Haut Root: Executive Director, Licensure, Regulatory Services and Human Capital
Melinda Kreth: Faculty, English Language and Literature; Chair, Academic Senate
Heather Polinsky: Faculty, School of Broadcast and Cinematic Arts; President, CMU Faculty Association
Brian Roberts: Instructional Technologist, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Kevin Smart: Director of Human Relations, Human Resources Employee Relations
Lawrence Sych: Faculty, Political Science and Public Administration
Marcia Taylor: Interim Associate Dean, College of Humanities and Social and Behavioral Sciences
Lesley Withers: Faculty, Communication and Dramatic Arts
Albert Zainea: Director, Undergraduate Programs, Office of Academic Development
Goals
The subgroup was asked to focus on the following goals:
The purpose of this group is to examine the administrative processes related to online course/program development and delivery, and identify areas where improvements can be made e.g. curriculum approval, course development, staffing, etc.
The group will make specific recommendations for short and long term changes to improve administrative online development and delivery that will ensure CMU continues to provide high quality courses and programs in every format.
The group will seek input from a wide-range of CMU stakeholders to ensure that recommendations meet the needs and expectations of the greater university.
Process The subgroup met fourteen times from April to October of 2016. In addition to the committee members, representatives from offices across campus contributed to the discussion, including: The Registrar, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, and Off Campus Programming. The subgroup began by outlining the main steps involved in developing and delivering online and hybrid courses at CMU (Appendix G). In the end, the committee recommended a simplified process that will remove many of the real and perceived barriers to online and hybrid course development, and which emphasizes the role of academic units and the needs of students in the process (Appendix H).
29
Recommendations
1. Remove language related to delivery mode from the MCS (“Master Course Syllabus”) process as defined within the Curriculum Authority Document (See appendix for details of proposed deletions).
Rationale:
The OAPC recommends currently required language related to delivery mode be eliminated from the course development and course review process for the following reasons:
o The CAD currently requires that departments submit MCS revisions for online or hybrid delivery to the CCC (“College Curriculum Committees”) for final approval. These approvals stop at the academic college level of the curricular process. The colleges and departments are, and will remain, responsible for the development of courses for online or hybrid delivery. Therefore, the current process does not offer any additional oversight beyond the college and department and adds unnecessary processing steps.
o The MCS bulletin description is not the best place to communicate to students the delivery mode for a course in which the student wishes to enroll. Course delivery mode information should be conveyed through the registration system and tied to the specific section in which the student wishes to enroll.
o Information regarding the special requirements for online or hybrid courses (Section III.D.2.e) should also be communicated through the course registration system. The current recommended language is too generic and MCS are revised too infrequently to accurately reflect the changing technology associated with online and hybrid course delivery.
Responsible CMU body: Academic Senate
Current Status: Recommendation #1 was presented to the Academic Senate on 11/1/2016. The senate requested additional time to consider the recommendation and postponed a vote until 11/15/2016. The Academic Senate subsequently voted to not approve on 11/29/2016.
2. Delivery mode, and dates and time for all required synchronous activities, must be communicated to students, for all courses, through the online registration and scheduling system. Rationale:
The structural subgroup believes strongly that prior to registration for a course, students should be informed of the delivery mode and all expectations of required synchronous activities. Currently, for online courses, that crucial information is not communicated until after the student registers and she receives the course syllabus. In addition, the current practice of scheduling “unofficial” hybrid courses results in scheduling implications for students that aren’t revealed until the first day of class. The latter practice is unfair to students and an inefficient use of university classroom space.
30
CMU’s online registration and scheduling system is the best venue to ensure that students are adequately informed about delivery mode and scheduling details for specific course sections. Unlike other documents e.g. MCS, Bulletin, most students regularly use the registration and scheduling system.
Responsible CMU bodies: Registrar, Office of Information Technology, Academic Units and Colleges
Current Status: Recommendation has been shared with Registrar. Initially the Registrar will need to work with the Office of Information Technology to develop a new system, or alter the existing system to adequately support the recommended information. Once the system is functional, academic units and colleges will need to ensure that detailed scheduling information is included for synchronous online courses and hybrid courses.
3. Update bulletin language related to mode of course offerings. Rationale:
Current and proposed practices related to online and hybrid courses are not accurately described in the “distance learning” language currently found in the undergraduate and graduate bulletins.
Responsible CMU bodies: Provost’s Office and the Office of Academic Effectiveness
Current Status: Recommendations concerning the undergraduate and graduate bulletins will be shared with the Provost and the Office of Academic Effectiveness by the end of the 2016-17 semester.
4. Update definitions of course types based on delivery mode and student/instructor interaction. Insert new course delivery mode definitions alphabetically within the CAD Glossary. (see definitions below).
Course Descriptions Code Definitions
Face-to-Face F2F Courses meet in a physical classroom on the main CMU campus or at another CMU center. Regardless of the number of weeks the course meets, formalized instruction consists of a specified number of face-to-face class hours for every specified hour of course credit. Web-based and other technology may be used to enhance instruction in and outside of class. Course meeting dates, times, and location(s) are noted in the course registration system.
Hybrid
HY Courses meet some of the time in a physical classroom on the main CMU campus or another CMU center and the rest of the instruction and course work is completed online synchronously and/or asynchronously. Web-based and other technology may be used to enhance instruction in and outside of class.
31
Locations for face-to-face meetings as well as dates and times for face-to-face meetings and synchronous online activities must be defined prior to the start of the course and noted in the course registration system.
Online Synchronous
OS Courses do not include any face-to-face class meetings in a physical classroom but require students to participate in virtual class meetings online at specified dates and times, which are noted in the course registration system. If proctored exams are required, that fact is noted in the course registration system.
Online Asynchronous
AS Courses do not include any real-time face-to-face class meetings, whether in a physical classroom or virtually. All formalized instruction and course work is completed online. If proctored exams are required, that fact is noted in the course registration system.
Rationale:
A significant omission in the current course mode definitions found in the CAD is a recognition that online course may, and hybrid courses will, have required synchronous activities. This should be recognized within the course definitions and accurately communicated to students at the time of registration.
Responsible CMU body: Academic Senate
Current Status: Recommendation #4 was presented to the Academic Senate on 11/1/2016. They voted to adopt the recommended definitions with minor edits. Those edits are reflected in the above table.
5. The Teaching and Learning Subgroup of OAPC is recommended to work with the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) to ensure improved communication and collaboration between CETL, faculty, and departments regarding options available for online/hybrid course development. Rationale:
Through discussion with constituents around campus, it became clear that there exists a strong perception that the former Center for Instructional Design (CID) was overly prescriptive in the way faculty were guided through the course development process. In other words, faculty often felt that online courses were required to fit into a well-defined box. While the reality may not have been as constrained as the perceptions would indicate, the perceptions have resulted in a negative view for many instructors and, potentially, stifled participation in the development of online and hybrid courses.
32
Responsible CMU bodies: OAPC Education and Preparation Subgroup, Office of the Provost, and
Academic Development
Current Status: Recommendation #5 has been shared with the Education and Preparation
Subgroup of the OAPC 2.0, Vice Provost of Academic Development and the Interim Director for
the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
6. We recommend control and responsibility for online and hybrid courses rests with the academic units and colleges. Matters for consideration between academic units and colleges include, but are not limited to:
a. developing and reviewing instructional materials; b. setting appropriate course caps; c. scheduling courses (excluding face-to-face and hybrid courses offered at distant
locations); d. making decisions related to teaching online sections regarding in/out/overload
assignments; e. recruiting, approving, and assessing adjunct faculty; f. deciding on the frequency of online course revisions and updates as well as who will
perform the work. Rationale:
The clear distinction between courses taken by Global Campus students and Main Campus students no longer exists. Online course sections regular serve all of our students regardless of their campus of origin. The administration has recognized this fundamental change and has undertaken steps to merge service functions from Global Campus and Main Campus to improve efficiency and functionality (primarily with the Office of Enrollment and Student Services).
Currently, there remains a division in responsibility for managing, scheduling and staffing online courses and main campus courses. This division of responsibility has resulted in inefficient and, often, conflicting scheduling decisions. More importantly, this division has led to an antagonistic relationship between academic units and former Global Campus service units. Whether justified or not, the lack of trust has stifled innovation and development in the online arena.
There will continue to be a need for support provided by ESS and other divisions so that the academic units and colleges can effectively manage online course delivery e.g. licensing, enrollment projections, advising, etc. Also, because of the difficulties it would create for main campus academic units to schedule face-to-face or hybrid courses at off-campus locations, it is recommended that ESS continue to serve that function.
As the tuition revenue generating division, it makes sense for the academic units and colleges to take responsibility for the delivery of online courses. It is expected that academic units would be responsible for the day to day operations of online and hybrid course management with the colleges providing oversight and approval. This
33
arrangement would be the same as currently exists for face-to-face courses taught on the main campus.
Responsible CMU bodies: Office of the Provost, Office of Enrollment and Student Services, Academic Units and Colleges.
Current Status: Recommendation #6 has been shared with the President, Provost and the VP of ESS. Upon final approval, ESS, the Provost and the Council of Deans will need to develop a transition plan. While this is a major transition for faculty and staff, it must be handled in such a way that students are not negatively impacted.
7. We recommend that the Office of Information Technology (OIT), in conjunction with the Registrar’s office, provide an electronic scheduling and registration system so that department chairs can effectively:
a. schedule tentative course offerings two years in advance; b. schedule on-campus rooms for a full year; c. schedule instructors for a full year; d. permit students to register for a full year.
Rationale:
Given the additional workload that recommendation #6 will present for academic units, it is imperative that CMU update its antiquated scheduling system.
To improve graduation rates for all students, whether Global or Main Campus, CMU needs to do a better job of providing students with the information necessary to plan their academic paths.
Responsible CMU bodies: Office of the Provost, Office of Enrollment and Student Services, Office of Information Technology, the Registrar.
Current Status: Recommendation #7 has been shared with the Registrar who is currently reviewing potential systems. Initially the Registrar will need to work with the Office of Information Technology to develop or purchase a new system. Once the system is functional, academic staff will need to undergo training.
8. The terms and conditions related to course development and revision are presently incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement between the Administration and the Faculty Association. These matters are important aspects of the employment relationship between the University and its faculty, reflecting the balance between investment in new and developing opportunities and conservative stewardship of tuition dollars.
In that light, the parties should continue discussing these important terms and conditions at their next opportunity in collective bargaining.
34
Rationale:
Certain practices of remuneration with regard to the development of new onlinecourses and/or the revision of existing online course have evolved over time and beencodified within existing bargaining agreements. While the structural subgroup believesthere have been some unintended consequences reflected in the current situation, itwas determined that the OAPC should not render specific recommendations, but rather,strongly recommend that the issue be discussed at the next opportunity for collectivebargaining.
Responsible CMU bodies: Faculty Personnel Services (FPS), Faculty Association (FA), Union of Teaching Faculty (UTF).
Current Status: Recommendation #8 has been shared with the Executive Director of FPS and the current President of the FA.
9. In an effort to remove barriers (real or perceived) and assist in development and delivery ofonline and hybrid courses/programs:
We recommend instructional cost centers currently used for activity from online and satellite sites (i.e. 31XXX) be reviewed for potential consolidation into a single set of instructional cost centers (i.e. 21XXX). All current and ongoing reporting needs must be fulfilled with any consolidation of cost centers.
Rationale:
Because Global Campus no longer functions as a revenue generating division, the 31XXXaccounts within CMUs accounting system are no longer needed. Additionally, the 31XXXaccounts continue to cause confusion within the academic units and colleges. While theflow of tuition revenue from all sources will continue as currently defined within CMU’sRCM budget model, the proposed change should help to eliminate confusion.
Responsible CMU bodies: Academic Administration (potential lead coordinator due to the nature of the accounts), Accounting Services, Financial Planning and Budgets, Student Account Services and University Billing, Institutional Research, the Registrar, Office of the Provost.
Current Status: Recommendation #9 will be shared with the above departments by the end of the Fall 2016 semester.
10. In an effort to remove inconsistent and outdated policies from CMU’s website:
We recommend that the current Academic Senate Policy - Distance Learning Standards and Guidelines be deleted (Appendix I).
35
Rationale:
The current policy has not been revised since 2001. Many of the entities and processesdescribed in the policy are no longer valid. Other items have been superseded by laterdocuments.
Responsible CMU body: Academic Senate
Current Status: Recommendation #1 was presented to the Academic Senate on 11/1/2016. The senate requested additional time to consider the recommendation and postponed a vote until 11/15/2016. The Academic Senate voted to approve on 11/29/16.
General Next Steps
The Academic Senate and various university bodies have been updated as to the final work of the OPAC
2.0. After Presidential review and approval of the final OAPC 2.0 report, the document will be posted on
the OAPC website to provide information to the university community. University Communications will
be asked to post an announcement as appropriate. Electronic letters and reports will be distributed to
leaders who are responsible for particular aspects of the report recommendations, follow up and
actions.
Conclusion
This report concludes the work initiated by Board of Trustees Mandate from April of 2015. OAPC 1.0,
OAPC 2.0 and related Subgroup Members worked diligently to complete research and make thoughtful
recommendations. It is our belief that this work informs the CMU community about our strengths and
needs within the realm on online and e-learning offerings.
Recognitions and Thanks
We wish to express our appreciation to the CMU Board of Trustees, Senior Leadership, Faculty, Staff and
our Students for their time, talent, and support toward completion of this herculean project.
36
Appendix A University eLearning Portal
University eLearning Portal
Team Members: Kathryn Dirkin, Professor/Teacher Education & Professional Development, Marnie Roestel, Manager/ eLearning Delivery and Support, Tim Peters, Interim/Associate Dean, CMU Libraries, and Laura Thompson, Faculty/CMU Libraries
Actions: The first step taken by the committee was to survey Central Michigan’s available resources for
eLearning. The group found that many resources already exist for faculty but are found in isolated areas
of campus (both virtually and physically). Consequently, a team was formed to determine how to
centralize access to these various resources via one “eLearning Portal”, thus providing one-stop access
to resources and services.
Findings: Early discussions with the OAPC Education and Preparation sub-committee identified the
various units that provide faculty resources, support, and training. It was further acknowledged that a
lack of synergy exists among these units and their individual offerings result in faculty confusion over
where to go for needed services and resources as well as a duplication of efforts among these units.
Furthermore, these discussions revealed that faculty have very little access to other faculty outside of
their departments relative to sharing best practices for eLearning. The potential to use web-based
technologies to facilitate communication and collaboration is under-utilized. Committee members also
feel it is important to have online resources which target best practices in eLearning. In addition to
facilitating communication and collaboration, providing access to online resources, and online
professional development, the group also feels that a common digital repository should be created. This
would mean, for all units creating learning objects that could be incorporated into courses shells (online,
hybrid, face-to-face), that the objects should be housed or accessed in a single digital repository, using
consistent methods of categorization. Access to high quality content will support quality instruction and
be cost effective when avoiding a duplication of efforts in multiple units.
Recommendations: We would create a single web-based eLearning portal, which, by way of social-
networking and response tools, facilitate collaboration and communication online, while providing a
single umbrella linking to many new and existing resources as well as up-to-date online professional
development opportunities. Through the creation of a centralized eLearning Portal, expertise in teaching
& learning best practices can be broadened. Integrating social media applications can help identify
additional resources, communicate new services, and identify additional gaps. For example, some
institutions hold Twitter chats to help identify current needs and topics for professional development.
Social media tools such as Yammer (already purchased by the University) can create Facebook-like
groups for faculty to collaborate.
Research Supporting the Recommendation: In a review of the research it was clear that faculty development for online teaching and learning should not just focus on the technology. It should focus on the pedagogical practices that support quality teaching and learning in eLearning environments
Appendix A University eLearning Portal
“Best practices of faculty development for instructional technology suggest that the focus be pedagogy, and not simply technology skill acquisition [25]. Such programs should include social and professional dialogue and be based on instructor work and experiences in the classroom [26]. Well-balanced faculty development programs that increase knowledge of pedagogy, course design, presentation of content and skills in the appropriate use of technology encourage development of quality online courses.” (Reilly, Vandenhouten, Gallagher-Lepa , & Ralston-Berg, 2012, p. 102) This has implications not only for online professional development modules but also for the design of the site itself. Furthermore, in a review of the cost effectiveness of various faculty development models for online teaching Meyer (2012) found the greatest number of institutions planned on expanding their use of online modules. Online modules, unlike one-to-one models, will not increase in cost as more users are added. Furthermore, institutions can share costs of production with other units and/or use freely available resources. In a related study Meyer and Murrell (2014) found that the highest rated type of training content for online teaching focused on assessment of student learning and creating community. The team also researched examples of eLearning portals from higher education institutions. Sites that
stood out to the committee included the following:
● Michigan State University, Hub (http://hub.msu.edu/)http://hub.msu.edu/)
● Northwestern University, Digital Learning (http://digitallearning.northwestern.edu/)
Click here to find a complete list of websites.
Detailed Description of Recommendations:
The eLearning Portal would provide CMU constituents with the following opportunities:
Access:
● House/reference learning objects created by CMU and tagged within the digital repository for
easy retrieval.
● Have the ability to house/link to/display the vast number of resources available (covering from
content creation, to using technology/apps in the classroom, leading teaching practices, etc).
● Give administrators the ability to update information in-house as needed.
● Allow faculty/end users to subscribe/opt out of content pushed to them based on a particular
topic or subject matter (e.g. Newsletter sign up, quick tip sign up, RSS Feeds) as well as provide
the ability to share an article (e.g. industry/association generated articles or faculty stories) for
vetting and future placement into the Portal.
● Provide a live chat function to assist users in locating content/services available on the site (to
be staffed during regular University operating hours), connect them to one another, or other
resource personnel.
Portal Design/Functionality:
● Be of minimal cost to maintain (e.g. no licensure fees)
● Present a large variety and volume of information yet be easily maintained and navigated.
Appendix A University eLearning Portal
● Be aesthetically pleasing through the use of a variety of eye-catching elements, graphics and
carousel features.
● Be engaging, user-friendly, and intuitive for users to navigate.
● Possess the ability to dissect information and content in a variety of ways (by faculty type, by
interest of user, subject matter, etc).
● Provide Google-Type Analytics through an Administrator Panel in order to determine usage of
site, identify hot topics and frequently searched for items.
● Allow administrators to collect user-feedback on site (e.g. ease of use and relevance of
information provided) through a variety of methods, such as a web form that elicits feedback or
a virtual suggestion box.
● Have a rotating carousel highlighting new features, hot topics, recently added content items,
quick tips, etc.
● Present content in a variety of ways (e.g. 2 to 3-minute learning object segments, written
articles/short stories, graphics, infographics, video clips, etc).
Professional Development Offerings:
● Provide a listing of trainings, professional development offerings, and a schedule of events.
● Allow for the submission of consultation/symposium requests or seeking assistance in locating
benefits/services provided.
● Access to online tutorials and professional development.
Faculty Connection and Collaboration:
● Contain social media platform(s) that will build a faculty community for collaboration in the
virtual space
● Provide the ability for faculty to post a question or engage in a conversation with others.
● Assist faculty in locating desired information through a variety of methods (e.g. knowledge base,
live chat, ask-a-question form).
● Allow for faculty to showcase innovative practices learned and implemented in their classes.
● Provide the ability to highlight CETL’s services/capabilities.
● Provide access to curated articles and resources submitted by faculty. Resources will be
categorized for easy access.
Resources Needed:
● Web developers, writers, and graphic designers
● Faculty developers with expertise in eLearning
● Content experts from across units (CETL, Faculty Support & Assessment, Library, etc.) to identify
and collate existing content, resources, and services for placement into eLearning Portal.
Appendix A University eLearning Portal
● Support from media productions, instructional designers, CETL, Library etc. for creation of
online PD modules.
● eLearning Portal Maintenance Needs
● New eLearning Portal Manager to maintain site, curate new content, update information and
events, assist faculty visiting site, and facilitate communication.
● Budget: see addendum
Anticipated Impact and Measurements: The rich and robust collection of resources and services
provided by the eLearning Portal in one centralized location will lead to greater opportunity for
networking, collaboration, and professional development among CMU faculty, which will in turn lead to
the dissemination of innovative teaching and research practices within CMU classrooms. Successful
adoption of the eLearning Portal will be determined by the level of interaction and involvement in the
Portal by CMU faculty. Usage can be measured by:
● The number of unique ‘hits’ to social media tools and content items within the eLearning
Portal
● The number of items submitted by faculty to site (e.g. feature stories, guest columnists, short
articles, and descriptions of innovative research).
● User-behavior analysis: number of unique faculty users to site, length of time spent on site,
number of RSS feed subscribers, number of blog subscribers, etc.
References: Meyer, Katrina A. (2014). An Analysis of the Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Faculty Development for
Online Teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1), Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2014, Vol.18(1).
Meyer, Katrina A., & Murrell, Vicki S. (2014). A National Study of Training Content and Activities for
Faculty Development for Online Teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1), Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2014, Vol.18(1).
Reilly, Janet Resop, Vandenhouten, Christine, Gallagher-Lepak, Susan, & Ralston-Berg, Penny. (2012).
Faculty Development for E-Learning: A Multi-Campus Community of Practice (COP) Approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 99-110.
Appendix B Online Course Development Cohort
Online Course Development Cohort Team Members: Tim Peters, Interim Associate Dean/CMU Libraries, Michael Mamp, Faculty/Human Environmental Studies, and Jeremy Bond, Interim Director, eLearning/CETL Actions: Early on, much discussion, in the committee, addressed current processes relating to online course development, perceived requirements, barriers and other frustrations. This team formed to look in-depth at alternative course development models which could serve to improve the experience for all involved and better meet the University’s needs. Findings: A number of observations and insights from our meetings, as well as conditions existing relative to online course development at CMU contributed to the needs identified. Currently, course design is a one-on-one process between a designer and SME, resulting in an overly taxed system and course developers who are neither aware of the work of others, perhaps even when in the same department, nor consistently aware of resources at their respective disposal (e.g. media production, library, materials support, etc.). A more collaborative approach would introduce much needed efficiency AND community. Central Michigan University needs a robust, efficient, and sustainable model for online/eLearning course development and maintenance, which results in inclusivity and the production of market-responsive, high-quality, media rich, online courses, intimately understood by their developers, prepared for subsequent instructors, and with curricular connectivity to one another as needed. The one on one approach to eLearning/online course development currently in use does not naturally afford faculty meaningful connections to one another, shared experiences, nor uniform exposure to course design support resources. Though the present model has served the university for many years, the demands placed upon it have shown its limitations. An alternative model will relieve some strain on current resources, empower faculty and provide a closer, more active experience with the design and production of their courses, affording uniform access to course design support resources, tailored consultations, flexibility, and peer-to-peer interactivity. Recommendation: We would create a Cohort Course Design/Revision model similar to those in place at other institutions (Virginia Tech, Purchase College, SUNY, and University of Arizona) and well-supported in the literature (Hixon, 2008). Research Supporting the Recommendation: Interactions with representatives of the three institutions mentioned above revealed significant advantages to a cohort-based approach, involving 3-6 faculty participants, progressing as a group through the process of designing online courses. The peer-to-peer aspects afforded faculty a high degree of collaboration, and positive impact on the work itself. Moreover, course-to-course curricular connections are more easily surfaced and addressed in support of Fink’s (2013) finding that creating significant learning experiences necessitates that they need to be built into the curriculum, not just into individual courses. (VanDerLinden, 2014). At Virginia Tech, specifically, the number of courses produced in a cohort model was three times that of previous methods, as designers consult on design and faculty interact with a team of support personnel while designing courses. “Online course development is a complex endeavor, and it is not reasonable to believe that a high caliber online course of instruction can be created by just one or two people. Quality courseware production requires a highly organized, concerted effort from many players” (Caplan, 2004, p. 186). Furthermore, “there must also be appropriate collaboration between the instructor and others involved in the project, ensuring that the “instructor’s teaching style, course goals, instructional objectives, and particular wishes [are driving] the development process, rather than making technology choices first and then trying to fit instructional strategies into these” (Byun, Hallet, and Essex, 2000, p. 58).
Appendix B Online Course Development Cohort
Detailed Description of Recommendation: Faculty would continue pursuing, as needed, certain self-paced training opportunities to develop fundamental skills related to use of the University’s LMS (Self-paced Fundamentals of Blackboard) and perhaps additional self-paced development related to online teaching/eLearning design. Following which, faculty would be matched to a development cohort:
● 3-6 faculty, all of whom would be designing or revising courses
● 12-week timeline (8-weeks for course revisions)
● 3-5 meetings/work sessions, as well as other interactions, as needed, with various personnel
(e.g. librarians, media producers, instructional designers, technical support, etc.)
● Faculty from the same discipline/program or
● Inter-disciplinary groups
● In all cases, faculty develop courses, engage in peer-review in conjunction w/ any
● Uniform access and exposure to support resources:
○ LMS/Instructional Tech – Blackboard/tech-related concerns
○ ID/TLC – pedagogy, andragogy, design
○ Library – OER, articles, learning objects
○ Media Production – studio/original media
○ eLD&S – publisher materials
○ Other - additional resources as identified by other factor
● NON-EVALUATIVE facilitation/tracking by Project Coordinator OR ad hoc by eLearning
Coordinators/Faculty Support Coordinators
● Task support (e.g. loading content to the LMS, repetitive configuring of course elements, etc.)
provided by a student-staffed “coursepro” work group comprised of existing student employees
Resources Needed: ● Additional Instructional Design staff ($55k-75k + benefits) (*Please Note: The same
recommendation for funding for an Instructional Designer position was made by the Market
Analysis Sub-committee.)
● New Project Coordination/Management staff ($45-65k + benefits)
● Base-funding for existing provisional media production position ($40k-50k + benefits)
● Note: Please see budget addendum to see how these positions will also support the other
recommended initiatives. The budget in the addendum also includes benefits.
Anticipated Impact and Measurements: The proposed approach to online course development and revision is expected to result in increased capacity for eLearning/online course development; improved faculty experience, greater ownership and empowerment, and by extension improved student experience, higher quality courses, and better utilization of existing resources
Assessment Measures ● Was the experience improved?
○ Survey or focus group of faculty participants to get their feedback on
the experience (how it helped them, was it worthwhile, etc.?)
○ Survey the support units (library, writing center, media services) to see
whether they feel more involved/invested in the process of course
development now.
● Was the efficiency or capacity improved?
Appendix B Online Course Development Cohort
○ Measure if the time to course creation has decreased in light of the
cohorts.
○ Measure the number of courses developed per semester/year prior to
the cohorts and then after.
● Was student success improved?
○ DEW Rate impact
References Byun, H. P., Hallett, K., & Essex, C. (2000). Supporting instructors in the creation of online distance
education courses: Lessons learned. Educational Technology, 40(5), 57-60. Caplan, D. (2004). The development of online courses. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and
practice of online learning. Athabasca, AB, Canada: Athabasca University. Retrieved February 24, 2004 from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/
Hixon, E. (2008). Team-Based Online Course Development: A Case Study of Collaboration Models. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration 11(4). Winter, 2008. VanDerLinden, K. (2014). Blended Learning as Transformational Institutional Learning. New Directions
for Higher Education, 2014(165), 75-85.
Appendix C College eLearning Symposiums
College eLearning Symposiums
Team Members: Diane Marble, Interim Director/CETL, Jeremy Bond, Interim Director/CETL, Stephanie Bechtel, Director/FS&A, Leela Rakesh, Faculty/Mathematics, and Anil Kumar, Chair/Entrepreneurship
Actions: In early discussions, the Education and Preparation Subgroup identified two critical needs: 1) faculty must be more engaged in the identification of meaningful eLearning solutions for their own practice; and 2) rather than having faculty come to development opportunities (both face-to-face and online), the combined expertise of the university should come to the colleges and departments.
Consultation with representative faculty revealed that colleges vary in terms of the levels at which they engage in blended, hybrid, or online instruction. There is also a large gap in terms of using technology and acknowledgement of the benefits of eLearning incorporation. Finally, it is clear that faculty want different levels of support, based on their current practice, and access to peer “champions” for eLearning development.
Findings: In discussing transformational institutional learning, VanDerLinden (2014) states, “a first step is to allow stakeholders to see that a better way exists to produce optimal learning in courses” (p. 79). He also explains that it is critical to situate eLearning in the broader context of student learning, rather than a more limited initiative. U.S. colleges and universities broadly recognize that the diversity of students, along with their needs and expectations, has driven a diversity of course times, formats, and modes. “To be effective, faculty must respond to these new plans, support the learning of students with diverse learning needs, and develop curricula and teaching strategies appropriate for a range of learning environments” (Austin and Sorcinelli, 2013, p. 85).
We need to provide faculty with a springboard for sustainable on-going professional development, reflection on practice, and increased peer communication and collaboration. Faculty must be supported in identifying common challenges in instruction and student learning, and then in recognizing and incorporating eLearning solutions. In addition, it is only through individual and collective faculty recognition of need that we can establish a truly compelling value proposition for increasing CMU’s menu of hybrid, blended, and online courses/programs.
Recommendations: We would create college-based eLearning best practices symposiums, with flexible participation options (i.e., face-to-face and online) for all college faculty. These one-day symposiums would occur twice a year and be hosted by the college, in partnership with a core planning team. The purpose of the symposiums would be to focus on the unique needs and key initiatives of the college/departments; showcasing exciting/innovative applications, demonstrating eLearning best practices, and creating greater awareness of resources and services. Each symposium would end with identification of sustainable action plans for the college, e.g., workshops targeting college/department needs and work sessions to connect faculty with instructional designers, subject matter librarians, media services, and other resources that target their specific needs. The core planning team would assist with establishing a reasonable professional development plan so as to support momentum.
Research Supporting the Recommendation: A review of higher education literature highlighted some critical components in engaging faculty for meaningful and sustained development, which this proposal considered and incorporated:
It is important to consider faculty attitudes towards instructional development programs and content. We must ensure the experiences add value within the competing demands on faculty
Appendix C College eLearning Symposiums
time and provide paths for faculty at various career stages and appointment types to improve their teaching practice, form deeper institutional connections, and/or further their scholarly interests.
Collegial networks are a powerful method of modeling best practices, showcasing innovations, identifying role models, and forging collaborative partnerships. These networks should be both face-to-face and online.
Significant learning experiences need to be built across the curriculum. Faculty are increasingly asked to collaborate in research and teaching activities with colleagues
who hold different scholarly traditions and/or modes of work. This collaboration can richly influence individual practice.
Detailed Description of Recommendation: A core planning team would be established for service and support to the colleges in planning and offering the eLearning best practices symposiums. It will be necessary to identify a full-time administrator with capacity for coordinating the team and events. Prior to the start of each symposium, core planning team members would meet with invested faculty and administrators within the colleges to co-plan the event. This would include:
College and department administration – needs assessment discussion and key initiatives Identified eLearning faculty “champions” within the college – including those with innovative
and successful experiences in multiple formats and those who can connect to student needs, expectations and experiences
IT support at college level that can incorporate eLearning needs within the context of college disciplines
As a result of these meetings, the core planning team would work with college administration to identify faculty members for leadership in a college symposium committee. Ideally, each department will be represented in this committee. The core team would provide support to this committee in:
Determining the symposium date and location Outlining the agenda and presenters Planning for engaging face-to-face and online participation Structuring and delivering announcements to college faculty (i.e., regular, fixed-term and part-
time temporary) Managing registration of college participants Managing event logistics (e.g., set-up, catering, IT support, directions, etc.) Assessing symposium impact Planning and delivering any follow-up communications and/or activities – for instance, when
faculty identify a unique solution to a key challenge/initiative and need support structures within the college or within a larger CETL effort.
Resources Needed: The first resource needed is clear and motivating support for this initiative from university and college leadership. Next, it is necessary to identify core planning team members who have the skills, experience, and capacity to provide meaningful and practical service to the colleges. One member of this core planning team could be a dedicated symposium coordinator, which may require the support of a new position to the university. However, this role could also be included as a duty of the new Program Manager listed in the attached budget.
Appendix C College eLearning Symposiums
The estimated proposed budget for each symposium is $2,500, including set-up and catering, materials, and IT resources. In addition, we recommend a $1000 yearly stipend for each college symposium committee member. Please see addendum for budget as the Program Manager and other positions suggested will also support the symposiums.
Anticipated Impact and Measurements: Each symposium will have a clear plan for participant follow-up and specific data points established by the college symposium committees to determine effectiveness. Possible measures include:
Number of attendees, including participation goals by faculty rank/status Attendance increase/decrease from previous events Frequency of service usage (e.g., number of library consultations) Evidence on implementation of tools, teaching strategies Number of new hybrid/blended and online courses
References
Austin, A. and Sorcinelli, M. (2013). The Future of Faculty Development: Where are We Going? New Directions for Higher Education, 2013(133), 85-97.
Interview with Dr. Leigh Graves-Wolf, Assistant Director, MSU Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology. Thursday, June 2nd, 2016.
Spitzer, D. (1976). The Importance of Faculty Attitudes in the Planning for Instructional Development. Research in Higher Education, 1976(5), 97-111.
VanDerLinden, K. (2014). Blended Learning as Transformational Institutional Learning. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(165), 75-85.
Whitelaw, C.; Sears, M.; and Campbell, K. (2004). Transformative Learning in a Faculty Professional Development Context. Journal of Transformative Education, 2004(V.2, No.1), 9-27.
Appendix D Survey Analysis
Page 1 of 15
Results of the Online Academic Program Committee, Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report
Office of Institutional Research
October, 2016
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
2
Background and Methodology:
On September 8, 2016 invitations were emailed to the population of 24,085 students who were
currently registered for courses for the Fall, 2016 term at CMU. The population represented
both on-campus and off-campus students registered as undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral
students, as well as MD students. For the purposes of this report, Doctoral students are
included with graduate students. Students in the College of Medicine (N=100) are included in
the relevant level of program of the course, either undergraduate or graduate.
A total of 6, 710 responses were received for an overall response rate of 27.9%. The number of
completed surveys was 6,324, for a completion rate of 94.2%. There were 5,144 valid
responses from the undergraduate programs, of which ninety-two percent were from face-to-
face programs, including off-campus programs (92%, N=4,776), and the remaining eight
percent (8%, N = 368) were from online programs. There were 1,566 valid responses from the
graduate programs, of which sixty-three percent were from face-to-face and on-campus
programs (63%, N = 994) and the remaining (37%, N = 467) were from online programs.
Of the total respondents, nearly thirty-six percent of undergraduate students are currently
taking at least one online course (Chart 5). In addition, nearly sixty-one percent of graduate
students are taking at least one online course (Chart 6).
Table 1: Undergraduate/Graduate by Program Delivery
Population Respondents
N Percent N Percent
Undergraduate 18,708 78% 5,144 77%
Graduate 5,377 22% 1,566 23%
Total 24,085 100% 6710 100%
Population and Respondent Profiles
In order to compare the student population to the respondents, demographic data was taken
from both populations. Demographic data for age, gender, ethnicity, and program level are
somewhat evenly matched between the overall population and the respondents, as shown in the
following charts.
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
3
Chart 1: Age
Chart 2: Gender
Chart 3: Ethnicity
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
4
Chart 4: Program
Type of Students
The survey asked respondents to self-identify what type of student they were (traditional, non-
traditional, etc.) Respondents were allowed to choose more than one type, therefore the total
(7,171) is higher than the total respondents (6,710). Several charts and tables present the data
based on type of student where appropriate. However, because those respondents who are dual-
enrolled, non-degree seeking, or guest are less than three percent of the total respondents, they
are not included, except in Table 2 below.
Traditional students are those who normally enter college at the age of 25 years or less. Non-
traditional students are identified as those over the age of 25. Professional students are those
who are taking professional courses to enhance their careers, or for recertification purposes.
Dual-enrolled students are students taking both high school and college courses. Guest students
are generally non-degree seeking as well. The above definitions are used for this survey
instrument. It should be noted that there are other definitions for non-traditional students,
including those who work full time, who attend college part-time, who are financially
independent, and/or delayed enrollment into postsecondary education. Some respondents
therefore answered both traditional (under 25) and non-traditional.
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
5
Table 2: Type of Students for Respondents
Online Course Activity:
Respondents were asked to identify how much of their overall CMU coursework was online.
Nearly half (47%) of all respondents have taken at least one online course at CMU. A quarter
of all graduate students (25%) have taken all of their graduate courses online. While graduate
students appear to be more likely to take online courses, the reason may also be that many
more graduate programs are offered online than undergraduate programs. In addition, more
than half of all graduate respondents have taken at least one course at another institution.
Because of the relatively high amount of CMU graduate programs online, a possible
confounding variable, correlation analysis was not done.
Chart 5 and Chart 6 show the percentages of undergraduate and graduate students who are
currently taking courses, by course delivery. The question asked students to identify between 0
and 6 course currently being taken. Again, these charts show that graduates are more likely to
be currently taking online courses.
Finally, the survey asked those students who had not taken any online courses at CMU to state
why not. A majority of both undergraduate and graduate students who have not taken online
courses state that they prefer the organization, as well as the interaction with students and
instructors, of traditional face-to-face courses.
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
Traditional (Age 25 or less) 4,466 87% 440 28% 4,906 73%
Non-Traditional 582 11% 1,007 64% 1,589 24%
Professional 266 5% 304 19% 570 8%
Dual-enrolled 31 1% 6 0% 37 1%
Non-degree seeking 24 0% 17 1% 41 1%
Guest Student 24 0% 4 0% 28 0%
Total 5,393 1,778 7,171
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
6
Table 3: Online Course Activity
Number of
courses taken
online
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
No courses 2,935 58 572 37 3,507 53
Less than half 1,749 35 452 29 2,211 33
More than half 106 2 133 9 239 4
All courses 279 5 384 25 663 10
Total 5,079 100% 1,541 100% 6,620 100%
Table 4: Have you ever taken an online course at another institution other than CMU?
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
Yes 2,355 47 827 54 3,182 48
No 2,706 53 711 46 3,417 52
Current Course Activity
Charts 5 and 6 show the current course activity for undergraduate and graduate students. These
are the types of courses students are enrolled in for the Fall, 2016 semester.
Chart 5: Undergraduate
64%
16%9%
3% 4% 4% 1%8%
2% 4%7%
24%
42%
13%
84%
8%2% 1% 2% 3% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Current Courses - Undergraduate
Online Face-to-face Hybrid
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
7
Chart 6: Graduate
The survey instrument asked students who had never taken an online course at CMU, to
identify why they hadn’t. Table 5 shows the breakdown by undergraduate and graduate level
students.
Table 5: If you have not taken online courses at CMU, please share your reasons (check
all that apply):
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
I prefer the longer course format
(in weeks) typically offered in
face-to-face courses. 582 11% 89 6% 671 10%
I prefer face-to-face on-campus
courses. 6 0% 7 0% 13 0%
I prefer the structure/organization
of face-to-face courses. 1,331 26% 176 11% 1,507 23%
I prefer face-to-face interaction
with instructors and fellow
students. 1,690 33% 262 17% 1,952 29%
I have never considered online
courses 933 18% 122 8% 1,055 16%
Other* 306 6% 186 12% 492 10%
*See Appendix B for breakdown of “Other”
39%
28% 26%
4% 1% 0% 1%
41%
15% 13% 14%8%
2%7%
81%
12%5%
2% 1% 0% 1%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Current Courses - Graduate
Online Face-to-face Hybrid
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
8
Evaluation of Online Learning Environment:
The quality indicator of the survey is Online Learning Environment. Analysis measured the
student satisfaction with the CMU online environment. Students that indicated they have taken
at least one online course were included in the analysis. Mean scores (Chart 7) indicated
overall satisfaction with the online learning environment. However, undergraduate students
reported the lowest rating (mean of 2.78 out of 4.00) for “the online interaction with other
students enhances my online learning,” as well as the lowest percentage of strongly agree +
agree (67%).
Table 6: Evaluation of Online Learning Environment (Percent strongly agree + agree)
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
Online Course materials are
clear and easy to follow 1,715 88 814 90 2,529 88
Online course material was
split into manageable
segments 1,700 87 824 91 2,524 88
Online course materials and
assignments are relevant
and contribute to the
learning process 1,786 92 839 93 2,625 92
The online interaction with
instructors enhances my
online experience 1,424 75 759 84 2,183 78
The online interaction with
other students enhances my
online experience 1,271 67 693 77 1,964 70
I receive constructive
feedback to help understand
learning materials 1,545 81 781 87 2,326 83
I receive timely feedback to
questions/assignments 1,676 88 811 90 2,487 88
Assignment due dates are
clearly communicated 1,827 93 839 92 2,666 93
Help desk support is
responsive when needed. 1,310 91 662 96 1,972 93
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
9
Chart 7: Graduate and Undergraduate Evaluation of Online Learning Environment
Evaluation of Feeling Part of CMU:
Among respondents, satisfaction levels were statistically equivalent for all measures, for both
undergraduate and graduate respondents. Overall, 58% of those taking at least one online
course felt a part of CMU. Additionally, even the majority of students you had taken all
courses online felt part of the CMU community. There is no way of knowing whether students
understood what “community” means.
Table 7: As an online student, do you feel part of the CMU community.
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
Yes 1,299 60% 518 53% 1,817 58%
No 492 23% 278 29% 770 25%
Not Sure 358 17% 177 18% 535 17%
The survey also asked students to identify whether they felt a part of the CMU community.
“Community” was not defined, as it can mean many things to different people. The committee
wanted to know if those who took more or less online classes felt differently regarding
“community.” The results are in Chart 8. Students taking all courses online are likely enrolled
in online programs, and therefore are likely to spend little or no time on campus.
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
10
Chart 8: Feeling a part of the CMU Community
Respondents were asked to rate which factors were important in their decision to enroll in
online courses. The questions used a four-point likert scale (“Strongly Agree”, “Agree”,
“Disagree”, “Strongly disagree”). The three responses that garnered the highest ratings were
how course fit within their lifestyle, the shorter format (in weeks) of online courses, and the
pace (regarding academic rigor) of the online courses.
It’s also important to understand the strategies that students use to be successful in online
courses. Overwhelmingly, the two strategies students employed were to “Set aside additional
time for coursework” (34%), and “Stayed in communication with my instructors” (27%). Table
8 shows the distribution by program level, and Chart 9 shows the distribution by type of
student.
Table 8: How important are the following factors in your decision to enroll in CMU
online courses? (Percent very important agree + moderately important)
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
A preference for online learning
methods 1013 49 624 66 1637 54
The pace of online courses 1386 67 689 73 2075 69
My previous positive
experiences with online courses. 1113 54 525 56 1638 54
48%
61%
53%
41%
14%
23%
31%28%
38%
16% 16%21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
None Less than half of allcourses taken online
More than half, butnot all courses
All courses weretaken online
Feel a Part of CMU Community
Yes No Not sure
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
11
The shorter format (In weeks)
typically offered in online
courses 1464 71 653 69 2117 70
The start and end dates of online
courses 1390 67 568 63 1958 65
A desire to take a course under a
certain instructor 660 32 277 29 937 31
Online courses fit my lifestyle of
personal needs 1521 73 820 87 2341 78
Chart 9: How important are the following factors in your decision to enroll in CMU
online courses? (Percent very important agree + moderately important)
*The responses for dual-enrolled, non-degree seeking, and guest students are not included in
the chart. These three categories combined are less than 3% of all student responses.
Table 9: I used the following strategies to help me be successful in online courses (Select
all that apply):
N %
Set aside additional time for course work 2619 34
Used CMU's Online Ally 180 2
Contacted the Help Desk 517 7
Stayed in communication with my instructor 2101 27
Stayed in communication with my fellow students 1253 16
Used on-campus resources 810 10
82%
29%
61%
69%
52%
70%
62%
90%
26%
61%
72%
55%
75%
71%
70%
34%
67%
69%
54%
65%
43%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Online courses fit my lifestyle or personalneeds
A desire to take a course under a certaininstructor.
The start and end dates of online courses.
The shorter format (in weeks) typicallyoffered in online courses.
My previous positive experiences with onlinecourses.
The pace of online courses.
A preference for online learning methods.
Type of Student Answering Very Important or Moderately Important
Traditional Non-Traditional Professional
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
12
Use virtual office hours 259 3
Other* 43 >1
Total 7782
*See Appendix C for breakdown of “Other”.
Resources and Services
Respondents were asked to state their satisfaction with online resources, using a four-point
likert scale (“Very Satisfied”, “Satisfied”, “Dissatisfied”, and “Very Dissatisfied”.) In addition,
respondents were asked if they were aware of services, or to indicate if they felt services were
“Not Applicable”. Tables 10 and 11 lists the percentages of students who were Very Satisfied
+ Satisfied with student resources, the percent of students not aware of the services, and those
who said the service was Not Applicable. Table 10 shows the breakdown by program level,
while Table 11 shows the same responses broke down by type of student.
Finally, students were asked if they were simply aware of several other services, with a yes or
no answer. Tables 12 and 13 shows the percent of students aware of these other services, by
program level and type of student, respectively.
Table 10: How satisfied are you with the following resources? (Percent very satisfied +
satisfied, Not Aware of Services, and Not Applicable).
Total Satisfied Not Aware
Not
Applicable*
N % N % N %
Global Campus Library Services 2,439 89 254 9 234 4
Online Orientation 2,103 78 470 16 265 4
Online Student Ally Services 1,569 63 864 29 467 7
Student Disability Services 1,006 70 394 13 394 13
Writing Center 1,897 88 182 6 814 12
Mathematics Assistance Center 1,377 78 329 11 1,196 18
Career Services 1,523 75 438 15 927 14
Veteran's Resource Center 760 53 632 21 1,553 23
Counseling and Mental Health
Services 963 57 658 22 1,295 19
Technology Help Desk 2,264 90 149 5 455 7
* Percentages will not add up to 100% as “Not Aware” is not considered part of the likert
scale and “Not Applicable” is treated as no response. Not Applicable values arise because a
particular item has no relevance to the respondent, therefore is coded as a no response.
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
13
Table 11: How satisfied are you with the following resources? (By student type)
Traditional
Students
Non-Traditional
Students Other Students*
N % N % N %
Global Campus Library Services 1,406 86 1,033 93 271 89
Online Orientation 1,182 74 850 84 231 78
Online Student Ally Services 892 59 628 68 169 63
Student Disability Services 748 81 234 50 91 70
Writing Center 1,178 90 656 85 205 88
Mathematics Assistance Center 1,009 86 340 62 119 77
Career Services 1,117 83 370 58 133 75
Veteran's Resource Center 490 54 247 52 78 53
Counseling and Mental Health
Services 740 69 200 35 82 57
Technology Help Desk 1,359 90 842 91 235 90
*”Other student” include all other categories of students, including Professional, non-degree
seeking, dual-enrolled, and guest students. These categories combined encompass less than
10% of all students.
Table 12: Other student resources (Percentage responding they were aware of each of
these services).
Undergraduate Graduate Total
N % N % N %
Office of Civil Rights and
Institutional Equity 861 42 460 49 1321 44
Sexual Aggression Peer
Advocates 523 26 473 51 996 33
Multicultural Academic
Student Services 526 26 424 45 950 32
Native American Programs 915 45 562 60 1477 50
LGBTQ Services 581 29 515 55 1096 37
Office of Institutional
Diversity 744 37 468 50 1212 41
CARE Team 1,090 54 581 62 1671 56
Student Ombuds 1,544 76 609 66 2153 73
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
14
Table 13: Other student resources, by student type. (Percentage responding they were
aware of each of these services).
Traditional
Students
Non-Traditional
Students Other Students*
N % N % N %
Office of Civil Rights
and Institutional Equity 700 40 572 51 143 44
Sexual Aggression Peer
Advocates 357 20 588 53 187 44
Multicultural Academic
Student Services 339 19 566 51 172 40
Native American
Programs 744 42 677 61 226 55
LGBTQ Services 384 22 657 60 206 51
Office of Institutional
Diversity 567 32 592 54 194 41
CARE Team 915 52 701 63 239 56
Student Ombuds 1,355 77 741 67 265 73
*”Other student” include all other categories of students, including Professional, non-
degree seeking, dual-enrolled, and guest students. These categories combined encompass
less than 10% of all students.
OACP Student Needs Subgroup Survey Report: 2016
15
Appendix B Other responses for Question 5, “If you have not taken online courses at
CMU, please share your reasons.”
Response Total %
No courses offered in programs 294 55
New student 112 21
Registered for online courses, but not started yet 37 7
Was unaware could take/that there were online courses/Opportunity to take
online hasn't presented itself/May take/didn't know how but want to try 20 4
Need for self-discipline/Lack self-motivation with online learning 14 3
Take at Community College/Cheaper at Community College/ Financial aid
barrier/Scholarship won't allow/More expensive 12 2
Used research data that states online rigor is not comparable to f2f/ Online
work is double-triple that of f2f/Not enough feedback 9 1
More inclined to take/has taken during the summer/F2f class fit schedule
more appropriately 8 1
Course design/Not have technology at home 7 1
Job requires to take f2f/License requires/My govt or my mom won't allow 6 1
Like the same as f2f 4 1
Registration issues 4 1
Online classes are terrible/Bad experience 3 <1
Appendix C. “Other” responses for Table 9, “I used the following strategies to help me be
successful in online courses (Select all that apply)”
Response Total %
Used Global Campus Library 17 40
Used organization tools 15 35
Used technology, such as computers 4 9
Used other unaffiliated resources online to help me understand concepts. 1 2
Student success advisor 1 2
Recorded collaborate sessions, to refer back to when doing some assignments 1 2
Past experiences 1 2
Grad Advisor 1 2
Discipline 1 2
Borrowed a more detailed textbook to assist with completion of assignments 1 2
Appendix E New Online Program Opportunities
Programs currently at CMU in demand for delivery Online
College Department
Undergraduate Programs
Business Administration Related
Accounting CBA Accounting
Finance CBA Finance
General Business Administration CBA Interdisciplinary - BSBA
Management CBA Management
Professional Sales CBA Marketing
Education Related
Nutrition & Dietetics CEHS Nutrition & Dietetics
Health Related
Health Care Administration CHP Health Sciences
Information Technology Related
Information Technology CSE Computer Science
Other Disciplines
Engineering CSE Engineering & Technology
Graduate Programs
Education Related
Counseling CEHS Counseling and Special Education
Early Childhood Education CEHS Teacher Education and Professional Development
Higher Education CEHS Educational Leadership
Health Related
Public Health CHP Health Sciences
Information Technology Related
Computer Science CSE
Other Disciplines
Engineering CSE Engineering & Technology
PhD - Industrial and Organizational Psychology CHSBS Psychology
Psychology CHSBS Psychology
Programs not currently at CMU, but could reside in a Department and be delivered Online
College Department
Undergraduate
Health Related
Health Informatics CHP Health Sciences
Information Technology Related
Network & Systems Administration CSE Computer Sciences
Appendix E New Online Program Opportunities
Graduate
Business Administration Related
Accounting CBA Accounting
Finance CBA Finance
Doctorate in Organizational Leadership Interdisciplinary
Health Related
Health Informatics CHP Health Sciences
Other Disciplines
Public Relations CCFA Integrated Public Relations Council
Programs not currently at CMU, but could be created to be delivered Online
College Department
Undergraduate
Health Related
Nursing CHP New School
Graduate
Other Disciplines
Homeland Security/Emergency Management Intersciplinary
Social Work CHSBS Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work
Appendix F Courses for Online Development
College of Communication and Fine Arts
JRN 380: Racial and Cultural Diversity: Mass Media’s Role
MUS 213: Jazz: An American Art Form
College of Education and Human Service
HDF 100: Introduction to Human Development
College of Health Professions
HSC 211: Human Anatomy & Physiology
College of Humanities and Social & Behavioral Sciences
PAD 210: Introduction to Public Administration
PSC 100: Introduction to Political
College of Science and Engineering
MTH 101: Elementary Algebra
MTH 113: Mathematics: A Modeling Approach
Courses Recommended for WI Online Development by College
College of Business Administration
BLR 222 – The Search for Racial Justice through Law
MGT 312 – Introduction to Management
MKT 300 – Introduction to Marketing
College of Communication and Fine Arts
ART 126 – Introduction to Visual Arts
BCA 101 – History and Appreciation of Cinema
JRN 101 – Media and Society
JRN 107 – Literary Journalism
JRN 205 – Shaping the Media
MUS 114 – The Listening Experience
College of Education and Human Service
HDF 110 – Oppression: Roots and Impact on Human Development in the United States
College of Health Professions
HSC 317 – Community Health
HSC 352 – Environmental Health
HSC 538 – Development of Proposals and Report in Health Administration
College of Humanities and Social & Behavioral Sciences
Appendix F Courses for Online Development
ENG 143 - Laughing Matters: Comedy and Satire
ENG 144 – Monsters and Their Meaning
HST 111 – The Quest for Liberty: The United States to 1865
or HST 112 – The Struggle for Equality: The United States to 1865-Present
HST 200 - Medieval Civilization
HST 236 – Babylon and Beyond
HST 323 – History of Native Americans
PHL 118 – Moral Problems or PHL 218 or PHL 230
PSC 261 – State and Local Government
REL 101 – World Religions
SOC 223 – Urban Structures and Change
College of Science and Engineering
BIO 315 - Genetics
BIO 338 – Human Ecology
Create Online Course
Create Online Program
Curricular ProcessGC and Dept. WILL Deliver
Course
Initial Online Course Development
Contract with faculty
member to develop or
revise course shell
Work with CETL /
Instructional Design to
develop course shell
Departmental review of final
course shell
Online shell complete and
approved
GC sets section enrollment
caps. Caps may be altered with
Dean s approval
GC determines # of sections of course to offer per semester
GC notifies academic units of scheduling
plans for upcoming 4 semesters
Authority or Process Defined in CAD
Adjunct instructors
reviewed and approved by
academic units
GC assigns instructors
from approved list of adjunct
instructors
Authority or Process Defined in FA and or
UTF ContractsOther
GC and academic units
recruit instructors for online courses
Academic units assign
instructors from UTF and
FA ranks
Compensation varies: faculty group, inload, supplemental,
etc.
GC schedules all courses for online
offering
Online instructors approved to teach
course
Online course Offered
Online Course Shell Review and Revision
Students Enroll
Tuition Collected
Credit / Grades Assigned
Student Course
Evaluations Submitted
Registrar / student records
updated
Revenuedistributed to
colleges /central admin. According
to RCMModel
Process Defined by CMU RCM Budget
Model
Revenuedistributed to
academic units at discretionof college
admin.
Instructor Hired
Online course scheduled
Faculty Developer Paid
Course Approved for
online Delivery
Teaching Syllabus
Developed
New Programs or Courses
Existing Courses
Appendix GDevelopment and Delivery Process
for Online and Hybrid Course
Academic Units,with approval of Academic College,
initiates development/revision of course for online or hybrid
delivery
Contract with faculty
member to develop or
revise course shell
Work with CETL /
Instructional Design to
develop course materials
Academic Unit reviews of final
course materials
Online orhybrid materials
approved
Process to be reviewed during
next contract bargaining sessions
Other
Course offeringslisted with all
synchronous meeting times communicated to students via the online
registration system
Tuition Collected
Credit / Grades Assigned
Student Course
Evaluations Submitted
Registrar / student records
updated
Revenuedistributed to colleges /central
admin. accordingto RCM Model. All tuition will
flow to a single21xxx account
Process Defined by CMU RCM Budget
Model
Revenuedistributed to
academic units at discretionof college
admin.
Faculty Developer Paid
Representative from Academic Unit
meets with CETL to review best options for development/revision of course
Academic Unit s regularly assess
courses
OIR and/or ESS Staff provide Academic Colleges projected
enrollment demand by course
Academic Units in collaboration with Academic Colleges
Schedule course sectionsSet course caps
Assign instructors
Students Enroll
Academic Units receive approval to
offer a course or program online. This
could be based on curricular
discussions within a college, or through
the academic planning process in the case of a new
program
Appendix HRevised Development and Delivery Process
for Online and Hybrid Course
Distance Learning Standards and Guidelines
Distance learning comprises web-based courses, learning packages, and other non-face-to-face formats
for delivering instruction. It does not include courses that meet with a traditional, face-to-face format at
sites at some distance from Mt. Pleasant (e.g. the CEL program center in Troy).
1. If Central Michigan University creates a Center for Faculty Development, then this center should
coordinate the existing Office of Distance Learning and Instructional Development units to:
• Train faculty in the development of distance learning courses and course modules;
• Develop faculty knowledge of and expertise in teaching distance learning courses; and
• Develop and maintain linkage with the College of Extended Learning’s (CEL) Center for
Research on Adult Learning (CRAL) to further our knowledge and understanding of
Distance Learning education and format effectiveness.
2. Each CMU course follows a Master Syllabus. An existing course, which is reformatted as a
distance learning course, will have an attachment to the Master as described in the Guidelines for
Preparing a Master Course Syllabus Addendum for a Reformatted Course. Similarly, a course
being formatted for distance delivery exclusively will follow the procedures outlined in these
“Guidelines.” (See Curricular Authority Document, Appendix H, for specifics.)
3. The UCC and Graduate Council should review and recommend for publication distance learning
formatted courses on the basis of: a) consistency of course objectives and text and materials with
the Master Syllabus; b) evaluation of students; and c) the degree of interactivity among students
and between the instructor and students, especially in graduate level courses.
4. Departments should develop and maintain a faculty-student interaction plan before more than
25% of the credit hours applied to a program are delivered in a distance delivery format. The
plan would address issues of faculty-student mentoring, cohort group and peer interaction,
student organizations, special events, laboratory and research facilities, and information and
instructional resources.
5. CEL should design on-line courses that require a minimal level of computer-based skills (e.g.,
chat room, discussion forum and e-mail). If further skills are required, these must be stated in the
distance learning formatted syllabus. Furthermore, if required access to specified hardware and
software are a pre-requisite of the course, it should be described in the course syllabus.
6. CEL should provide a mechanism for ensuring that the results of examinations are those of the
student.
7. CMU (CEL) should continue to offer adequate class record keeping assistance to distance
learning course faculty for routine maintenance and monitoring of student progress and
performance, thereby allowing the faculty member to devote their limited time and efforts to
teaching.
8. Class size should be determined jointly between CEL and the department offering the course.
The decision to impose an enrollment limit on a particular course should be left to departmental
discretion. The department should be required to support its decision to impose, or not impose,
any cap with a sound pedagogical rationale.
Appendix I
Distance Learning Standards and Guidelines
Page Two
9. Departments may assign graduate students as discussion leaders, teaching assistants, class
facilitators, and guest lecturers after they complete a faculty distance delivery training program.
However, graduate students normally should not be expected to teach entire courses in a distance
learning format.
10. Scheduling should be determined jointly between CEL and the department offering the course.
Credit hours should be under departmental control and decided on a course by course basis.
11. All distance learning programs and courses should be published in the appropriate current
oncampus bulletin. Courses and programs approved for distance learning delivery by the
curricular process will be so designated in the appropriate on- and/or off-campus Bulletins.
Similarly, the student course schedules will clearly indicate which course sections are being
offered through distance learning.
12. The University’s Program Review program instructions should be amended to include two key
questions pertaining to distance delivered programs:
a. Does the distance delivered program conform to the on-campus program in its essential
features?
b. Are the distance delivered program’s goals being achieved?
13. Departments should explicitly include their distance delivered programs in ongoing departmental
assessment.
Approved by the Academic Senate: #1: 9/26/00; #2 and #3: 10/10/00; #4-#13: 11/7/00 Revised
2/13/01
Related Documents
