Discussion from 2-5-07 Faculty Forum

Participants at this forum included: Mary Ann Bretzlauf (CA), Natalia Casper (EMPS), Diane Wolter (SOC), Lynn Rye (adjunct in CA), Ali O'Brien (Ed Affairs), Scott Rial (PDC), Mary Zenner (BUS), Scott Reed (EMPS), Kent Donewald (BUS), Rob Twardock (EMPS), Page Wolf (PDC)

At this session, we recapped what was discussed in the two previous forums and continued discussion with the following points:

Basic Points

• Blackboard Training is needed for all faculty members teaching online for the first time (or demonstrated Blackboard competencies met).
  
• Evaluation should examine only design of an online course (elements of the course, not even content)
• Some faculty members only have students buy text and take a midterm/final...offer their online courses more as independent study. There is a discrepancy on expectations (both for students and faculty) of what an online course should be.
  
• Reimbursement to develop online courses--perhaps only "QOCI approved" courses receive reimbursement. This might fix the type of situation with the "minimal course."
  
• Change to Quality Online Course Design.
  

Reviewing Online Courses

• Who would be doing the reviewing? Maybe one person inside and one outside the dept.
  
• Should quality guidelines be departmental? Departmental guidelines could discourage use of course cartridges.
• QOCI rubric should be used as a baseline that departments could add to. Also, don't focus on the word "instruction" in the rubrics.
  
• Separate the EVALUATIVE questions out of the QOCI rubric. Start with standards. Establish what those should be.
  
• Course reference files used to refer people what should be used for courses in terms of content. Coordinators/Mentors could give feedback. Deans/Assoc. Dean could evaluate.
  
• Program Review could be used (formative feedback not evaluation)

Examining MCC's Blackboard Training Matrix

Level I--Blackboard Technology Training
Level II--Instructional Training

• Right now both of these levels are mandatory for MCC.
  
• We could offer sessions like these completely online.
• These could be mandatory for new adjunct faculty and full-time faculty who are new to teaching online
  

Conclusions

• "It's like a line in the sand...we want a better quality of online course instruction from here on out!"
• If extra training is required, there needs to be a stipend or release time offered
• Training should mirror the QOCI rubric, so that people developing their course would have the rubric to begin with.
  
• Still no conclusion on who should evaluate for quality--deans? peer committee? APEC (Rob T. will make recommendation to APEC for program review to include a step evaluating online courses)
  

Discussion from 1-30-07 Faculty Forum

Participants at this forum included: Natalia Casper (EMPS), Kris Dahl (COU), Lauren LoPresti (BUS), Yvonne Block (BUS), Lynn Rye (adjunct in CA), Edward Bates (adjunct in SOC), Rob Twardock (EMPS), Page Wolf (PDC)

At this session, we recapped what was discussed at the 1-24 forum, and continued discussion with the following points:

Basic Points

• It is valuable for an instructor teaching online to be a student in an online class first
• Instructors should update their courses. Many don't clean up or hide their old announcements (announcements dating back to 2004!). We need to give a good impression.
• Something like what MCC had would be very helpful! (see link to Blackboard Training Matrix in RESOURCES)
• Need for college-wide consistency. Course should follow course reference file (currently course references differ among divisions)
• We need standards for quality of content in hybrid courses as well. (Hybrid--replace portion of class with discussion board..contact time not met.)
• There should be stipends to develop online courses.
  
• Many examples of full-time faculty sons/daughters taking online courses here and reporting back the poor quality.
  

Who do the quality guidelines apply to?

• We need to start applying QOCI guidelines with fresh part-time faculty members teaching online (mentors, PDC workshops, MVCR classes)
• We have some control over people in the future; we can require that they meet the standards.
  
• Set-up good habits and strict guideline NOW for part-time faculty. Departments will have to accept those guidelines.
  

Evaluation

• Peer evaluation committee should also visit online courses (for both tenured and nontenured faculty)
• Perhaps have an outside group such as ION do the evaluation?
  
• Perhaps evaluation can be done as part of program evaluation (less threatening). Have all programs evaluate online classes at 5 year evaluation. Program evaluation applies to ALL courses (currently doesn't look at individual courses, but no reason why it shouldn't). Maybe look at attrition or other factors.
  

What are the issues?

There seem to be two distinct issues:
1) What should the standard be?
2) How to evaluate? What action should be taken?

Participants agreed that there should be a college-wide standard with options for training in use of Blackboard and options for training in online pedagogy.

Current Blackboard training could serve as a test model. The QOCI rubric should be mentioned in this training. Perhaps turn it into a more extensive Blackboard bootcamp.

Discussion from 1-24-07 Faculty Forum

Participants at this forum included: Natalia Casper (EMPS), Mark Beintema (EMPS), Bob Kerr (SOC), Phyllis Soybel (SOC), Dan Petrosko (BUS), John North (BUS), Lynn Rye (adjunct in CA), Li-Hua Yu (SOC), Page Wolf (PDC) , Scott Rial (PDC)

Basic Points

• The quality guidlines are meant to start with adjunct and new full-time faculty members who are new to developing and teaching online courses.
• There are already situations where a full-time faculty member is supervising adjuncts where the online class is noticeably sub-par. It would help to have guidelines* in place for what CLC expects of its online instruction. *(people tended to like the the word 'guidelines' as opposed to 'rules' or 'requirements').
  
• Technically those currently teaching online are "grandfathered" such that they don't need to redesign their course to the new guidelines, although they should be encouraged to revisit their courses. Offer them the option to take refresher courses on new technologies, new Blackboard features, new methods of helping online students learn.
  
• Another thing that could help ensure quality is having a forum (such as the Orientation Week DLAC meeting) where faculty could share what's worked and what hasn't in their online classes.
  
• Now is the time to put some sort of parameters in place...we've had online courses for quite some time now and the proverbial "horse is out of the barn and we're trying to rein it back in."
  

What minimum guidelines do we feel need to be in place for an instructor to teach online? Should these be college-wide or departmentally based?

• BOTH!
  
• There should be at the minimum, college-wide Blackboard training available or an opportunity for faculty to demonstrate Blackboard competencies. CLC should provide stipends to faculty for this training.
  
• At the departmental level, a coordinator or online faculty within departments could provide something more specific for disciplines, using the QOCI rubric as a basis.
  
• For the Blackboard training, it is essential to offer it at times amenable to adjunct faculty schedules (evenings, Saturdays)
• Should there be requirements for a faculty member to be a student in an online class prior to teaching one? It was suggested to provide options: Take an Illinois Online Network (ION) course on how to teach online, work with an online mentor from discipline, work with the Professional Development Center.
  

What, if any, academic freedom issues exist in setting these qualifications?

• The participants differed in how they actually defined academic freedom. For this purpose, it would mean "how one sets up one's course"
• Evaluation standards for an online course should be COMPARABLE to standards for a face-to-face course
• It does NOT mean that the qualifications would dictate you using certain features in your Blackboard (e.g. "You MUST incorporate discussion into your class using a discussion board).
  
• Essentially...it focuses on how can you design a course to help students learn?
  

Who should be the individual(s) evaluating the courses for quality?

• No distinct answer on this yet.
  
• Other online faculty? Other departments? Mentors? Professional Development staff?
• Should this be done concurrently with the faculty evaluation process? Adding a separate tier for evaluating course design might be tough.
• It's not unreasonable to take a look at the design of all online courses the first semester they are offered.
  
• Make it a MENTOR situation. Call it "mentoring" the design of a course, not "evaluating" it.
  
• Use online faculty as resource people.
  

Please Join Us at an Open Forum

We recognize that this initiative needs to be faculty-driven. Therefore, we are offering several open forums for faculty to provide input and recommendations regarding ways of ensuring quality. It is important to contribute to these sessions, otherwise the decisions will be made without your input. Whether you are currently teaching online or are thinking about it for the future, this is your chance to have input as to which guidelines are put in place.

The dates of the open forums are as follows:

Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 2:00-3:00pm (Room A232)
*Will connect with Lakeshore and Southlake


Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 2:00-3:00pm (Room A232)
*Will connect with Lakeshore and Southlake


Monday, February 5, 2007, 2:00-3:00pm (Room A223)

Thoughts from Ed Bates

However, here are a few of my thoughts regarding this process:

1. The MCC checklist appears to be a good tool in determining readiness. Before teaching online, as you know, I received individual help from yourself and Phyllis Soybel as well as the class with Scott and Russ. All of this information was very valuable in the process. However, it would have been helpful to have a general list which tracked my progress regarding online instruction preparation.

2. Using Phyllis to evaluate my course has proved to be very effective. As an experienced online instructor, her being allowed access to my course provided an opportunity for meaningful and first-hand feedback to a new online teacher. Also, because she has a full understanding of the subject matter, she was able to offer key insights in the instructional process. I recommend that similar scenarios be used for the supervision and approval of online instruction.

3. There is a concern regarding academic freedom in this process. In a certain way, there appears to be more of a push to "control" online classes (I am experiencing a similar situation at COD) than traditional ones. Observe the ION/QOCI Rubric, are we subjecting face to face classes to similar design rigors? While I am not criticizing the principles involved in this rubric, there are many issues with this process which appear to portend a control over online classes which does not currently exist in traditional ones.

4. The idea of restricting the quantity of courses which can be taught online by a part-time instructor (I cannot speak for the full-timers) falls into a similar category to the current "cap 8" rule being followed by CLC administration. If an instructor is considered to be well qualified to teach online or traditional, what purpose would be solved by such restrictions? It would appear that this is actually an unecessary burden on administrators to hire more adjunct faculty.

What is the Quality Online Course Taskforce?

The Quality Online Course Taskforce was convened to discuss ways to ensure the quality of online course offerings at the College of Lake County. Stemming from a statewide initiative through the Illinois Online Network (ION) called the “Quality Online Course Initiative” (QOCI), this group examined various guidelines for quality currently in existence (both through QOCI and other institutions) and assessed their applicability to CLC’s courses.

Participants in the Quality Online Course Taskforce were selected on a voluntary basis and included: Connie Bakker (LRC), Yvonne Block (BUS), Natalia Casper (EMPS), Kris Dahl (COU), Penne Devery (COM), Ellen Dykeman (BUS), Lauren LoPresti (BUS), Ali O’Brien (Ed Affairs), Judy Rosenberg (COM), Nick Schevera (COM), Reme Tesch (BIO), and Jacquie Trimier (COM). Page Wolf, Faculty Instructional Developer in the Professional Development Center facilitated the meetings.

The group discussed the need for three essential elements to ensure quality:

1) A Distance Education Course Checklist (to be used prior to developing and teaching and online course)

2) The Quality Online Course Initiative Rubric (for course evaluation both during and after development)

3) The establishment of clearly listed guidelines and support materials for online course instructors.