Engaged eLearning @ CSU
Annual Report to the Cleveland State University
Board of Trustees
Academic Affairs Committee
April 11, 2008
Barbara E. Hanniford, Dean
Paul Bowers, Director, eLearning
Division of Continuing Education
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background…………………………………………..
Center for eLearning…………………………………………………..
Board of Trustees Resolution …………………………………………
eLearning Strategy Steering Committee ………………………………
eLearning Vision ………………………………………………………
eLearning Guiding Principles …………………………………………
Strategic Goals for eLearning …………………………………………
Competitive Analysis …………………………………………………
Enrollment History ……………………………………………………
Enrollment Targets ……………………………………………………
Program Plans …………………………………………………………
Organizational Model …………………………………………………
Finances ……………………………………………………………….
Accomplishments ……………………………………………………..
Future Milestones ……………………………………………………..
Conclusion …………………………………………………………….
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
9
10
11
12
14
16
16
18
Appendix A: Center for eLearning Strategic Work Plan …………….
20
2
Introduction and Background
Cleveland State University (CSU) faculty members have a history of course delivery and
enhancement using technology, including television and interactive video. The growth of
the Internet opened a new world of possibilities for reaching students literally anytime,
anyplace. Web-based learning was embraced by a few academic departments at CSU,
and early adopters offered online courses as long as 10 years ago. For most of those
years, the efforts were isolated, not coordinated, and not supported with an eye to
strategic University growth.
In the past decade, other higher education institutions—public and private, nonprofit and
for-profit—aggressively expanded their in-person and online offerings. Institutions that
were previously not considered competitors entered CSU’s market space with an array of
programs that were especially appealing to working adults.
In 2003, President Schwartz formed a task force to examine the impact of the for-profit
institution on CSU enrollments and make recommendations. One recommendation was
that CSU needed to develop an elearning strategy. The task force was asked to continue
its work as an “eLearning Committee” and develop this recommendation further. In
2005, the task force recommended that CSU create an “Office of eLearning” to provide
leadership, coordination, and support for the University’s elearning initiative. The Center
for eLearning was the result. It was intended to build very actively on existing elearning
efforts and extend the support that the University Center for Teaching and Learning
(UCTL) and other campus units had provided.
Center for eLearning
Dean Barbara Hanniford of the Division of Continuing Education became responsible for
the University’s elearning initiative in spring, 2006. The Center for eLearning was
officially created that summer. Initial staffing consisted of four positions that were
moved from UCTL. The Center continued to provide faculty development, training, and
instructional design support. It also issued an RFP to support online course development
in 2007, just as the UCTL had done in 2005 and 2006. Additionally, Dean Hanniford
began to raise the profile of elearning on campus and begin the strategic planning process
through meetings with and presentations to academic administrators and faculty.
A search was also launched for a Director, eLearning, and Paul Bowers was appointed to
the position in February 2007. The work of providing campus leadership, strong faculty
support for high quality courses, program and enrollment growth, and infrastructure
enhancements has continued throughout the past year. At the same time, staff roles and
responsibilities have been redefined, and new staff have been added. The Center’s staff
now consists of a director, two senior instructional designers, two online course
developers, and an administrative assistant. One vacant position is being redefined
currently.
3
The Center’s major roles are to:
¾ Provide leadership for the University’s elearning initiative
¾ Support and train faculty in designing and developing fully online, blended, and
Web-enhanced courses
¾ Work with academic units on elearning program development and marketing
¾ Lead in use of emerging elearning technologies
¾ Ensure availability of information and student services for online students
Board of Trustees Resolution
Given its interest in enrollment growth, Cleveland State’s Board of Trustees has been
very interested in the role the Center for eLearning can play. In March, 2007, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
March 16, 2007
RESOLUTION
IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING OF THE UNIVERSITY’S
eLEARNING INITIATIVE
WHEREAS, Cleveland State University recognizes the importance of web based
eLearning education as a part of the overall portfolio of education offerings available at
the university; and
WHEREAS, the past University eLearning Committee’s review, findings and
recommendation resulted in the forming of the Center for eLearning, reporting to the
Provost through the Dean of Continuing Education, Dr. Barbara Hanniford; and
WHEREAS, the growth and quality of Cleveland State’s eLearning initiative is believed
to significantly influence future campus enrollment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cleveland State Board of Trustees’
Academic Excellence, Competitiveness and Diversity Committee recommends that the
President and Provost request the Center for eLearning to publish a formal eLearning
Strategy with 1 to 5 year enrollment targets, a description of the programs and type of
Web-based offerings planned, an organization plan that describes the faculty /
administration relationship, a market analysis with Cleveland State’s competition and a
financial model and timeline of major eLearning milestones; and
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the President and Provost are instructed to have the
Center of eLearning report quarterly to Cleveland State’s Board of Trustees’ Academic
Excellence, Competitiveness and Diversity Committee strategy updates, market analysis
and progress toward goals.
4
The Center for eLearning has provided updates to the full Board of Trustees or its
Academic Affairs Committee in March, May, and September, 2007.
eLearning Strategy Steering Committee
An eLearning Strategy Steering Committee was created in May, 2007 to help guide the
Center for eLearning in creating a vision, goals, projections, and plans.
Committee members are:
Bette Bonder
Paul Haught
Brian Johnston
Vijay Konangi
Tim Long
Peter Meiksins
Ed Mills
Allyson Robichaud
Glenda Thornton
Marilyn Weitzel
Bill Wilson
Paul Bowers
Barbara Hanniford
Interim Dean, College of Science
Director, Extended Campuses
Director, Marketing and Public Affairs
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Relations
Director, Budget and Financial Analysis
Professor, Sociology
Chief Enrollment Services Officer (no longer at CSU)
Assistant Professor, Philosophy
Director, University Library
Assistant Professor, Nursing
Chief Information Officer
Director, eLearning
Dean, Continuing Education (chair)
The Committee has met regularly since its inception and has been invaluable in the
crafting of the plans covered in this report, beginning with a vision for elearning.
eLearning Vision
The eLearning Strategy Steering Committee adopted the following vision statement for
elearning at Cleveland State University, which the Center for eLearning is using to guide
its efforts:
CSU eLearning efforts will form a major strategy for achieving our goal of
graduating well-educated students who will help drive economic, civic, and
intellectual growth for the entire region and state. By 2012, CSU will offer over
20 strategically chosen degree and certificate programs online. CSU will have
developed a streamline process for moving programs online quickly and
responsively. CSU will be engaged in several partnerships regionally, nationally,
and internationally to develop and deliver elearning programs. eLearning
enrollments and programs will increase steadily each year, with a significant
portion representing students who would not otherwise attend CSU except for
online opportunities. Students in the region, the state, and beyond will choose
CSU because of our reputation for high quality academic programs, outstanding
support service, and convenient, flexible scheduling. Faculty will embrace
elearning as an important way to reach new audiences and to enhance the overall
quality of education at CSU.
5
eLearning Guiding Principles
The eLearning Strategy Steering Committee also adopted the following guiding
principles for elearning at Cleveland State University:
eLearning at CSU should:
•
enhance the perception and reputation of the University with bold and innovative
goals, placing CSU in a strong leadership role with respect to quality elearning,
•
significantly increase enrollments, especially among those student populations
who find it difficult or impossible to access educational opportunities within
current methods of delivery,
•
build upon national models, best practices, and standards to ensure quality
educational experiences and high levels of student achievement, demonstrated
through ongoing assessment,
•
support student and faculty success through access to high levels of help,
assistance, and consultation as well as up-to-date, robust technology systems,
•
develop, offer, and market programs quickly that respond to demonstrated market
needs,
•
provide adequate financial resources to ensure highly successful programs within
a model of overall financial sustainability, and
•
achieve widespread acceptance among faculty as an important tool for teaching
and learning by enhancing traditional classroom instruction, expanding flexible
delivery through blended formats, and reaching new populations of learners via
fully online programs.
Strategic Goals for eLearning
The eLearning Strategy Steering Committee helped to set the following strategic goals:
GOAL 1: Ensure high quality elearning courses and programs at CSU.
GOAL 2: Develop new programs rapidly that respond to demonstrable needs in the
educational marketplace.
GOAL 3: Offer elearning programs that will significantly enhance enrollments at CSU.
GOAL 4: Develop a sustainable organizational model for elearning that promotes both
growth and quality and fosters internal and external collaboration.
GOAL 5: Develop a delivery and support system that provides consistent, satisfying, and
seamless educational experiences for elearning students and faculty.
6
Competitive Analysis
Cleveland State University functions in a very competitive arena, especially in the
elearning marketplace. Nationally, the Sloan Consortium noted in 2007 that online
enrollments have grown substantially faster than overall higher education enrollments.
Almost 3.5 million students were taking at least one online course in fall 2006, growth of
nearly 10% over the previous year. In Ohio, the Ohio Learning Network found that
almost 50,000 students were enrolled in at least one elearning course at a public
institution in fall 2006—a 17.1% increase from 2005. About two-thirds of these students
were in two-year schools. A number of private non-profit and for-profit institutions are
also aggressively marketing their online programs nationally and in this region.
The Ohio Learning Network’s most recent data (Figure 1) show that Cleveland State had
the fourth largest elearning enrollment (unduplicated headcount) in fall 2006 among
Ohio’s public universities.
Figure 1. Ohio’s online course enrollments, Fall 2006.
O
Sh
aw
ne
e
S
Bo hi tat
w oU e
lin n
i
Yo M g G v.
un ia ree
gs mi n
to U n
w
n iv.
Ke Sta
W nt S te
r
t
Un igh ate
i tS
Cl v. o ta
ev f A te
el
an kro
d n
O St
Un hio ate
S
Un iv. o tat
iv f C e
.o i
f T nn
ol .
ed
o
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Source: Ohio Learning Network, December, 2007. Enrollments are unduplicated.
In terms of number of courses and programs offered relative to public and private
competitors, Cleveland State has a high number of online course offerings but not nearly
as many full degree programs (see Table 1). The state leader among public universities is
7
the University of Toledo. However, the University of Toledo established a unit dedicated
to developing and delivering online degree programs 10 years ago. The success and
leadership that Toledo enjoys today is the result of pioneering work and laying a solid
foundation for elearning. The organizational model for elearning has changed somewhat
over the past 10 years, but the strong institutional commitment to elearning remains.
Cleveland State can learn important lessons from Toledo’s experience. Certainly,
Cleveland State’s competitive position and reach will definitely be increased by adding
more complete online or blended degree and certificate programs.
Table 1. Degrees and Courses Offered at Selected Institutions in Ohio.
Institution
Cleveland State
University of Toledo
Bowling Green
University of Cincinnati
Kent State University
University of Akron
Tiffin University
Franklin University
Indiana Wesleyan Online
University of Phoenix
Kaplan University
Degrees
Assoc Undergrad
0
0
8
10
0
3
5
6
1
0
1
3
0
2
0
19
5
9
9
22
25
39
Grad
3
6
3
7
6
4
9
3
7
35
35
Certificate
1
17
5
3
0
0
0
5
4
13
Courses
07-08
320
881
506
295
241
105
300+
612
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source: Institutional websites.
We also gathered information on tuition of our competitors, as shown in Table 2 below.
Cleveland State tuition is in the range of other state institutions. The University of
Cincinnati appears to be the lowest of state universities in this comparison, which is
significant because UC has a growing online program that has begun marketing quite
heavily. On the other hand, the University of Toledo, the largest provider of elearning
programs among state universities, has tuition at nearly the same level as CSU.
Both Bowling Green and University of Toledo waive out of state tuition for students
taking all credits online. Both institutions report that this has had positive impact on their
out-of-state recruiting for elearning programs. Currently some CSU elearning programs
in the College of Education and Human Services offer scholarships that offset out-ofstate tuition. The cost of the tuition reduction is absorbed by the College. Reduction of
out-of-state tuition for elearning students at CSU is currently being reviewed.
Tuition at private and for-profit institutions tends to be lower than most public
universities in this comparison. Private and for-profit institutions often market total
program costs rather than a per-credit hour fee. Theses institutions also tend to have more
8
variable fees from program to program. Typically Business programs charge the higher
end of the scale and Criminal Justice and Education Programs fall at the lower end.
Table 2. Tuition Comparison at Competitive Institutions.
Institution
Undergrad
In-State
Cleveland State
Bowling Green State
Kent State
University of Toledo
University of Akron
University of Cincinnati
Tiffin University
Franklin University
Indiana Wesleyan Online
University of Phoenix
Kaplan University
$330
$400
$384
$330
$300
$262
$400- 475
$266-318
$275-399
N/A
$320
Grad
In-State
Out-of-State
$615
$749*
$722
$696*
$609
$665
Out-of-State
$439
$489
$408
$436
$342
$404
$700
$413- 484
$437-539
N/A
$350-395
$834
$838*
$728
$822*
$587
$732
* Out of state tuition is waived for students taking ALL courses online.
Source: Institutional websites.
Enrollment history
Cleveland State has had great growth in elearning enrollments over the past five years, as
shown in the table below. From academic year 2006-2007 to this year, student credit
hours in online and web blended courses increased by about 66%, as Figure 2 shows.
Figure 2. Headcount enrollments and student credit hours from 2003-04 to 2007-08
Head Count
SCH
25000
20648
20000
15000
12409
10000
7666
6405
5000
910
3962
3824
Enrollment Targets
2808
1224
2413
0
AY 03-04
AY 04-05
AY 05-06
9
AY 06-07
AY 07-08
Although CSU has seen rapid growth in elearning enrollments over the past few years,
targets for the next few may seem modest by comparison. Overall growth targets have
been set at 20% for AY 08-09 and 09-10 and at 15% for AY 10-11 and AY 11-12.
The reason for these targets is two-fold. First, elearning programs often experience
explosive growth in the early stages, fueled by demand for more convenience and
flexibility in course offerings. Frequently, however, programs experience a plateau effect
as demand reaches a peak and/or growth outpaces the institution’s ability to keep up with
demand. Second, these elearning enrollments do not represent entirely new student
populations. It is difficult to estimate how many students remain enrolled at CSU because
of increased elearning offerings. Certainly, elearning makes CSU more competitive in the
marketplace. But the strategic goal is to expand markets by serving new populations of
students not otherwise seeking enrollment at CSU. This strategic goal will emerge as a
result of increasing the number of complete programs available online to attract students
who cannot attend traditional classes because of employment, family commitments, or
distances.
Overall, the number of students enrolling in elearning courses and programs combined
will continue to grow at a rate above the enrollment increases overall across the
university.
Figure 3. 5-year elearning enrollment targets at Cleveland State University.
45000
39322
40000
34193
35000
29733
30000
24778
25000
20648
20000
15000
12535
10000
6045
7254
10446
8705
5000
0
AY 07-08
AY 08-09
AY 09-10
Head Count
10
AY 10-11
SCH
AY 11-12
Program Plans
Cleveland State currently offers several programs via elearning:
•
•
A Master of Science in Nursing in Specialized Populations.
A Master of Education in Education Technology (including an Endorsement
in Educational Technology)
• A Master of Science in Health Sciences
• Graduate and undergraduate certificates in Bioethics
• A Graduate Certificate in Research Administration (offered by the Maxine
Goodman College of Urban Affairs).
These programs were developed by the initiative of faculty and chairs in the respective
departments, with very little support of the kind currently offered by the Center for
eLearning. The Center is working with these programs to provide greater support,
especially in terms of redesigning some coursework and extending marketing efforts.
Nine additional elearning programs are planned for launch in the 08-09 academic year.
These programs were selected based on a combination of market need, faculty interest
and capacity, availability of some courses already online, and overall likelihood for
success. The goals for these programs are to generate some new enrollment, provide
models of success to encourage other programs and faculty, and establish a stronger
presence in the elearning marketplace.
These new programs include:
• B.S.N. in Nursing
o Completion program for students with an R.N. in Nursing
• B.S. in Health Science
o Completion program for students with associate degrees
• Gifted and Talented Learners Endorsement
o Master level endorsement with M.Ed. option
• Teaching English To Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
o Master level endorsement with M.Ed. option
• Education-Organizational Leadership
o M.Ed. blended program, includes principal licensure.
o Additional principal licensure-only program fully online
• Early Childhood Endorsement
o Required for at least one staff member in all Ohio daycare centers by 2010
• Urban Health – Certificate
o For health care professionals who administer or deliver education
programs
• MBA pre-requisite courses
o Graduate level courses required for entrance to the MBA program
o Additional MBA courses beginning development in Summer 08
• General Education course package
o Complete undergraduate offering of courses supporting degree completion
11
New programs plans for 09-10 and beyond include an emphasis on programs with a
strong potential market that will attract significant new enrollments to the university and
extend CSU’s market reach to more regional, statewide, and national populations of
students. Programs with potential to reach international audiences are also under
discussion. The Center is working closely with the Nance College of Business
Administration on possible programs and will be developing elective courses for the
MBA program this summer. The College of Engineering has also proposed delivering its
Master of Software Engineering degree online, with perhaps a blended format option to
serve international students. Undergraduate degree completion programs will be a
particular focus for the next round of elearning program development. As suggested by
the Northeast Ohio Universities Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission, we
will work collaboratively with other universities to the extent possible.
Organizational Model
The Center for eLearning operates as a University support unit, providing services,
coordination, and leadership to support elearning efforts at CSU. The Center does not
operate as a profit center offsetting costs of operation against elearning revenues, nor
does the Center charge other units for services it provides. The cost of operating the
Center, along with incentives to faculty for the development of elearning courses and
costs of elearning infrastructure, represent a strategic investment provided to colleges and
academic units to create and sustain elearning programs.
For students, the Center provides technical support (working with the IS&T call center)
and troubleshooting for the elearning environment. Center staff also handle general
inquiries about elearning programs and courses, making appropriate referrals or
coordinating responses with appropriate units within the University. Through the
elearning website, the Center provides access to useful resources such a links to a
“Getting Started with eLearning” manual, a readiness assessment to provide feedback to
students about their expectations for elearning, and access to a knowledge base called
“Ask eLearning” where students can search frequently asked questions and submit help
questions.
The Center for eLearning also serves an important point of coordination with Colleges
and academic units offering, or seeking to offer, elearning programs. Academic
programs still create the curriculum, articulate academic standards for the program,
provide all instruction, and monitor academic success of the program through ongoing
assessment. The Center collaborates with the academic program to supporting the course
development process by providing:
• Faculty incentives to buy faculty time
• Instructional design consultation and guidance best practices for elearning
• Media creation services to convert materials to appropriate online formats
• Overall project management to coordinate building all necessary courses
for the program
• Marketing coordination to promote the program to appropriate student
populations
• Assessment of student and faculty experiences, to help improve service.
12
One of the greatest challenges to building successful elearning programs has to do with
delivery of services. All of the usual functions of a university—admissions, marketing,
financial aid, registrar, advising, and others—must now serve students completely
through the Web. Creating a comprehensive and seamless support system for elearning
students requires that staff from all of these areas work together in unison. The Center for
eLearning serves as the focal point to bring together these efforts in units across the
university.
One of the themes in the new Strategic Plan for Higher Education in Ohio calls for more
collaboration between institutions in the University System of Ohio. eLearning programs
provide ample opportunity for collaboration with a variety of external partners, not just
other education providers, but business and corporate partners as well. The Center for
eLearning also works to build such relationships that leverage elearning infrastructure
and resources to better serve students and achieve the mission of the university. The
Center seeks to work with other colleges and universities in Ohio, community colleges,
the Ohio Learning Network, and national initiatives.
Figure 4 below presents a visual depiction of the organizational model for elearning at
Cleveland State University.
Figure 4. Organizational model for eLearning at Cleveland State University.
UNIVERSITY SUPPORT
COLLEGES
Academic Units
INTERNAL
UNITS
Registrar
IS&T
Library
Bursar
Marketing
Center for eLearning
Admissions
Advising
External Partners
STUDENTS
13
Finances
eLearning at Cleveland State has been organized as a university support activity. The
Center for eLearning employs a staff of 6, plus a Director, who provide instructional
design, media development, technical support, and program coordination services to
academic programs and faculty involved with elearning. The Center not only supports
elearning programs, but also supports the integration of elearning technology and practice
with traditional instruction.
In addition, the Center for eLearning provides incentives that provide for faculty release
time or stipends to develop elearning courses. Unlike traditional courses, elearning
courses must have fully developed content loaded into a course management system in
appropriate media formats for the entire course before the first day of a semester. It is a
very time and labor-intensive process. In course development, the Center provides three
essential kinds of service. First, instructional design staff guide faculty through the
entire development process focusing not only on content development, but also on
instructional strategy development appropriate for elearning delivery. Second, Center
staff greatly reduce the technological barriers for faculty by converting course content
into multimedia formats for delivery via the web. Third, Center staff help faculty
develop the requisite skills to utilize elearning technology effectively to interact with
students and facilitate learning.
The Center also coordinates delivery of services and support for learners and faculty with
other units across the university. The goal is to be able to conduct all transactions with
elearning students at a distance through the web, via telephone, or other technological
means. Not only do services and transactions need to be conducted at a distance, but also
over time. Most elearning students are adult learners, often employed full time, who
need to access services and conduct important transactions outside of normal operating
hours.
Table 4 illustrates the additional investment the university is making to support these
elearning efforts. This investment is beyond the normal costs of operation, instruction,
and overhead. It represents the additional costs necessary to support strategic growth in
elearning programs, including staff and benefits for the Center for eLearning, elearning
technological infrastructure, marketing, and costs of developing courses.
Table 5 illustrates the tuition revenue (instructional component only) received from
students enrolled in elearning courses. These courses include fully online and blended
courses (courses that include a significant online component, along with some face-toface class meetings). Revenue from web-enhanced courses (traditional courses that add a
web component but do not reduce face-to-face class sessions) is not included in these
figures. Many faculty now include a web component in traditional classes. Over 450
traditional courses during the spring 2008 semester used a web component.
The revenue for elearning courses is based only on the instructional fee, excluding any
other fees. The projected revenue for future years is based on enrollment targets
14
presented in figure 3, above. Table 5 also shows revenue for program-only enrollments
based on enrollment targets. Program-only enrollment refers to students enrolled in
courses that form part of a complete elearning program. As new programs are launched,
this will be one measure of looking at new students enrolling at CSU because of
elearning programs.
Table 4. eLearning Project Investment.
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
$480,000
$574,000
$736,700
$843,535
Operating Budget
$72,000
$85,600
$109,880
$125,374
eLearning Infrastructure
$50,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$50,000
$50,000
$128,000
$224,910
$321,300
$200,000
$300,000
$450,000
$450,000
27
40
60
60
852,027
1,212,640
1,671,550
1,940,269
Staff
Content Licensing
Marketing Budget
Course Development (Faculty
Release)
New Courses per year
Total Project Costs
Assumptions:
Staff = 5% growth, plus 1 or 2 staff per year @70,000 inc. benefits
Infrastructure based on IS&T costs for additional scalability
Faculty Release based on $7,500 per course
Marketing Budget based on a percentage of elearning program revenue
Table 5. eLearning Projected Tuition Revenue.
07-08
6,000
14,000
6000
20,000
08-09
7,500
17,500
7500
25,000
09-10
9,000
20,300
8700
29,000
10-11
10,500
23,800
10,200
34,000
Total Tuition Revenue
$6,374,000
$7,967,500
$9,242,300
$10,835,800
Program -Only Revenue
$1,043,763
$1,458,675
$1,944900
$2,917,350
Total eLearning Headcount
Undergrad SCH
Grad SCH
Total SCH
Assumptions:
• Revenue Assumption = $286/undergraduate SCH, $395/graduate SCH
(instructional fee, held constant for four years)
• Grad/Undergrad ratios based on historical data
• Includes online and blended courses – not web enhanced
• Program-Only revenue is that portion of Total Revenue attributable to
students enrolled in complete elearning programs
15
Accomplishments
The elearning initiative at Cleveland State has had a number of accomplishments since
the Center for eLearning was established almost two years ago. Among the major
milestones in the past two years are these:
¾ Director and other staff hired; roles and responsibilities redefined.
¾ eLearning enrollments increased almost 170% in two years.
¾ Production underway for online degree, certificate, and endorsement programs to
be offered for fall 2008.
¾ eLearning Strategy Steering Committee created; strategic planning well
underway.
¾ Training, faculty development support, outreach to academic units, and funding
for course development increased.
¾ eLearning course management system upgraded to Blackboard CE 6 and
integrated with PeopleSoft.
¾ CSU course schedule (CampusNet) website made searchable for elearning
courses.
¾ New elearning website for faculty and students created.
¾ eLearning planning meetings held with every college dean.
¾ eLearning Services Coordinating Committee formed.
¾ Formal course and program development process created, including use of
nationally-recognized “Quality Matters” course design.
¾ Recommendations presented to University Curriculum Committee passed.
¾ Faculty presentation station using MediaSite purchased and installed.
¾ Collaboration with University Library underway on electronic reserves and
copyright policy compliance.
¾ Online course evaluation system being pilot tested in Spring 2008
Future Milestones
For each strategic goal, the eLearning Strategy Steering Committee has identified a
number of milestones for the next five years.
GOAL 1:
Ensure high quality elearning courses and programs at CSU.
Milestones:
• Implement a formal course development process for online programs in 20072008.
• Offer an instructors’ “certification” program for faculty teaching online 20082009.
• Most elearning courses show either no-significant difference or favorable
differences with respect to student achievement when compared to face-to-face
courses. By 2010.
16
•
•
Most eLearning courses show either no significant difference or favorable
differences with respect to retention when compared to face-to-face courses. By
2012.
Most CSU elearning courses will be developed using nationally recognized
standards. By 2012.
GOAL 2:
Develop new programs rapidly that respond to demonstrable needs in the
educational marketplace.
Milestones:
• Implement program development and budget planning process for use with all
new elearning programs in 2007-2008.
• Reduce time-to-market for elearning programs approved for online delivery to
less than 9 months. By Fall 2009.
• Offer all new elearning programs in delivery formats that best meet demonstrated
needs of targeted audiences. By Fall 2009.
GOAL 3:
Offer elearning programs that will significantly enhance enrollments at CSU.
Milestones:
• Determine method for tracking and measuring new enrollments for elearning
courses/programs beginning in 2008-2009.
• Show 20% rate of growth in elearning enrollments for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010
and at least 15% for the three years thereafter.
• Offer at least 3 additional elearning programs in each academic year. Beginning
with Fall 2008 through 2012.
• Offer at least one elearning program that reaches international audiences by 2010.
• Enrollments in elearning programs contribute to a significant portion of overall
elearning growth (versus student enrollment in individual courses).
GOAL 4:
Develop a sustainable organizational model for elearning that promotes both growth
and quality and fosters internal and external collaboration.
Milestones:
• Center for eLearning and University marketing executes a marketing plan to
promote elearning integrated with the overall university plan. Spring 2008 and
thereafter.
• Develop a program to support creation and/or distribution of elearning materials
in content repositories, including both faculty incentives and technical
infrastructure.
• Center for eLearning and University Marketing launches an elearning web site
that provides a single point to promote all elearning programs and generate
elearning program inquiries. Spring 2008.
17
•
•
•
Center for eLearning demonstrates collaborative program development model
with CSU academic units through successful launch of at least 3 new elearning
programs. Fall 2008.
Demonstrate that eLearning programs achieve a break-even in new programs
overall by 2009-2010 and show a positive return on investment each year
thereafter.
Offer at least two elearning programs developed in partnership with other
institutions. By Fall 2012.
GOAL 5:
Develop a delivery and support system that provides consistent, satisfying, and
seamless educational experiences for elearning students and faculty.
Milestones:
• Center for elearning publishes Getting Started and Getting Help resources for all
elearning students, provides ongoing training for all appropriate units on helping
students get started (Campus 411, 5050 Call Center, Extended Campus staff,
advisors, etc.) Fall 2007. Center for eLearning establishes clear service metrics
for elearning support services. 2007-2008.
• Center for eLearning creates a 3-5 year infrastructure development plan to keep
up-to-date with new technology and improved elearning support services. Spring
2008.
• Satisfaction benchmarks established for elearning services through faculty and
student surveys. Improvements to benchmark satisfaction increases each year.
Spring 2008.
• Center for eLearning meets or exceeds all service metrics in 2008-2009.
Conclusion
eLearning offers many exciting opportunities for Cleveland State University, but success
with elearning requires facing many challenges as well. While CSU has experienced
explosive growth in elearning enrollments overall, the challenge will be to serve the
growing number of elearning students well, while also strategically expanding the pool of
elearning students to include students who might not otherwise enroll at CSU because
traditional programs are not accessible to them due to distance and time.
During the past year, the eLearning Strategy Steering Committee has met regularly to
shape a more intentional approach to elearning. Appendix A includes details for each of
the five major goals for elearning at CSU, including specific objectives, strategies,
benchmarks, and outcomes. This Strategic Work Plan is a work-in-progress that will
change as we work to respond to new knowledge, opportunities, and patterns of
enrollment. Many of the items included in the work plan have been achieved or are
already in process. The Strategy Committee continues to meet to ensure the strategic
direction remains focused and on target.
18
CSU has laid a solid foundation for elearning by supporting faculty over the past few
years and, more recently, through the creation of the Center for eLearning. The university
has undertaken the shift from proceeding reactively to new possibilities and technologies
to now moving forward in a strategic and intentional manner. Cleveland State University
is well positioned for leadership in elearning by emphasizing development of more
complete program opportunities, reaching out to new populations of students
geographically and demographically, building services enabled for 24/7 web delivery,
and designing quality courses built on best practices.
19
Appendix A: Center for eLearning Strategic Work Plan
Note: This plan was created in Fall 2007 and is intended to be a living document that is updated regularly.
GOAL 1:
Ensure high quality elearning courses and programs at CSU.
Objectives
Strategies
Benchmarks
What are the specific,
What specific action steps
What indicators will mark
measurable targets that will
and/or resources achieve
progress along the way?
address the goal?
these objectives
Faculty provide positive
Obj. 1.1
1.1a
Implement a course design
Create a process that
feedback that such a process
and development process
emphasizes pedagogy over
helps them develop better
that emphasizes best
technology, based on
courses more efficiently;
practices for elearning.
principles of sound
Faculty provide useful
instructional design.
feedback to improve the
process.
1.1b
Greater numbers of faculty
Build a process that is
practical and includes some
use the process or seek to
clear steps and workflow for avail themselves of Center for
faculty to follow.
eLearning consulting
services.
1.1c Include strong emphasis
on assessment and evaluation
Faculty who use the process
as an integral part of the
employ a greater degree of
design and revision cycle to
best practices in elearning
ensure continuous
improvement of courses and courses.
programs.
National standards and
20
Outcomes
How will we know when the
objectives have been achieved?
Faculty who follow the process
achieve higher scores on course
reviews and require fewer revisions to
achieve certification based on
nationally recognized course quality
standards
Faculty survey data show a preference
for using the process and perception
that it is useful and leads to stronger
course design and instruction.
Students rate courses that follow the
process higher in terms of instruction,
overall design, organization, and
application of technology.
1.1d
Provide clear definition of
roles and responsibilities that
allows for collaboration
between instructional
designers and technologists
and faculty.
Obj. 1.2
Implement a course design
quality review process.
1.1e. Develop collaborative
relationship between the
Center for eLearning and
Center for Teaching
Excellence to support strong
emphasis on pedagogy.
1.2a
Adopt Quality Matters
course design rubric to
review elearning courses.
1.2b
Provide grants to encourage
faculty to go through Quality
Matters review process.
processes, (such as Quality
Matters), adopted and
implemented as design
criteria.
Both Centers demonstrate an
alignment of programs and
resources that emphasized
excellent teaching.
Faculty volunteer to
participate in course reviews.
Faculty become trained and
certified as course reviewers.
Faculty serve as peer
reviewers for review projects
with other institutions.
1.2c
Provide training for faculty
and staff to become Quality
Matters certified peer
reviewers. Encourage faculty
to participate in peer reviews
for other institutions.
21
At least 10 elearning courses go
through a formal course review and
make improvements to the course.
The number of reviewed courses rises
to 15% of all elearning courses per
year after three years.
At least 50% of reviewed courses
achieve a quality certification upon
first review. This number rises to
70% after three years.
1.2d
Continue to review other
nationally recognized course
design rubrics and processes.
Obj. 1.3
Develop and disseminate
guidelines and compile best
practices for teaching
elearning courses.
1.3a
In conjunction with
University Curriculum
Committee and Colleges, and
Center for Teaching
Excellence develop,
disseminate, and periodically
review guidelines for
teaching elearning courses.
1.3b
Develop a peer mentoring
process for more experienced
faculty to provide feedback
and guidance with less
experienced faculty and
adjuncts.
1.3c
Maintain a repository of
good elearning teaching
practices and relevant
metrics for faculty reference
and for ongoing review of
UCC and Center for
eLearning, Center for
Teaching Excellence (and
others?) engaged in
discussions.
Adoption of clear guidelines and
articulated role for UCC and others in
promoting guidelines and ensuring
their application.
The University provides
appropriate incentives and
recognition for faculty to
support involvement in the
mentor program.
All new faculty and a rotating
schedule of other faculty participate in
peer mentoring reviews of teaching.
Center for eLearning and
Center for Teaching
Excellence collaborate to
develop draft
recommendations.
Faculty teaching elearning courses
and developing new ones make
frequent and active use of repository
materials.
22
institutional guidelines.
Obj 1.4
Develop a comprehensive
faculty development program
that prepares faculty for
developing courses, using
technology, and facilitating
elearning courses
1.4a
Develop a consistent
workshop program that
addresses course design,
course facilitation, and
technology application in
face-to-face and online
formats.
1.4b
Offer a CSU elearning
certification for faculty who
complete the full workshop
sequence and other
benchmarks.
System for disseminating and
collecting additional practices
is developed.
Faculty workshop
participation increases 10%.
At least 12 faculty complete the full
certification program by the fall of
2008.
At least 50% of all elearning faculty
Certification program
workshop curriculum outlined are certified within 3 years.
by Oct 1, 2007.
CSU achieves regional and national
Complete cycle of workshops recognition for elearning faculty
development program.
offered by end of Spring 08.
Full cycle of workshops
offered online by Summer of
08.
1.4c
Partner/join with other
campus units, institutions,
and organizations to provide
more faculty development
opportunities for elearning.
Host a successful Technology
Fair for CSU faculty and
staff.
1.4d
Publish a Faculty
Development for eLearning
guide to promote the entire
curriculum and periodic
Complete draft guide
template.
23
CSU leads a consortium of at least
four other institutions providing
elearning development programs to
faculty.
At least 50% of workshop activities
are facilitated by experienced faculty.
Publish updated guide at least every
semester.
schedule of opportunities.
Obj. 1.5 Assess learning
outcomes from elearning
courses and compare with
traditional courses.
1.4e
Create a “develop the
developers” program to
involve experience
instructors as workshop
leaders.
1.5a
Academic units conduct
assessments.
Provide incentives and recruit
initial cadre of developers.
Conduct initial training
workshop.
An assessment plan is
developed and adopted for
examining elearning courses.
24
At least 80% of workshops, as
appropriate, are conducted entirely
with or include faculty peers as
presenters.
Assessments demonstrate that
elearning courses compare favorably
to traditional courses.
GOAL 2:
Develop new programs rapidly that respond to demonstrable needs in the educational marketplace.
Objectives
Strategies
Benchmarks
Outcomes
What are the specific,
What specific action steps
What indicators will mark
How will we know when the
measurable targets that will
and/or resources achieve
progress along the way?
objectives have been achieved?
address the goal?
these objectives
Obj 2.1
2.1a
Establish an eLearning
Develop a standard program Programs proposals follow a All new elearning programs follow
similar format based on
Program Development
evaluation “funnel” with
this process rigorously.
market research, competitive
strategy to identify and
clear steps and timelines to
analysis, and academic
review elearning
review new program
analysis.
opportunities.
opportunities.
2.1b
Outline a clear approval
process to move new
proposals forward through
the funnel including
appropriate academic
approvals as well as
administrative support
approval.
The Center actively develops
6-8 new program evaluation
proposals as a service in
conjunction with programs
each year.
2.1c
Identify and outline clear
roles for which offices
should conduct which parts
of the proposal evaluation
process, including
competitive analysis,
25
Obj 2.2
Provide funding to develop
programs based on
demonstrated needs and
priorities.
academic analysis, budget
pro forma, and market
research.
2.2a
Replace the current course
development grant process
with a program development
grant process. Provide
multiple year funding to
allow for full program
development.
Begin funding new programs
through revised “grant
process.”
All elearning programs funded
through this grant process.
2.2b
Clearly distinguish between
program development costs
and program delivery cost.
Develop clear guidelines for
how development and
delivery costs are allocated
between central support and
individual Colleges.
2.2c
Develop a consistent policy
for faculty compensation for
elearning course
development as part of the
program development
process.
All elearning courses and programs
operate on the same compensation
Develop recommendations
for appropriate compensation model.
model, consistent with faculty
contract and University
policies. Seek approval from
appropriate parties.
26
2.2d
Include course revisions and
course refresh as part of the
development or delivery
costs.
Obj 2.3
Develop new programs or
new delivery modes for
existing programs for
specific segments of the
market, e.g. adult learners at
a distance, transfer students,
international students, and
graduate students.
Obj. 2.4 Reduce time to
market for new programs.
2.3a
Develop delivery models
tuned to the needs of the
student population (e.g. nonsemester terms for adult
learners, hybrid executive
formats for working
professionals, etc.).
2.3b
Survey particular segments
of potential markets to
determine both
characteristics of both
program and delivery needs.
2.4a
Develop a program proposal
and evaluation process that
greatly speeds up the pace at
which online program
delivery proposals can be
approved for funding
(separate from new program
academic approval).
Offer some new programs
using alternative delivery
models.
All new elearning programs justify
delivery model based on sound
academic practice, target audience
needs and characteristics, not
institutional traditions or convenience.
Develop validated survey
items to construct useful
surveys quickly and easily.
Include survey data as support for
delivery mode decisions.
Apply process to selected
programs to demonstrate
faster program development.
All programs follow a similar process.
Time-to-market for approved
programs falls under 9 months. Time
to approval decreases significantly for
most programs.
27
2.4b.
Speed development process
through a variety of tactics
including participation in
consortia, purchase of
content, use of content
repositories, and outsourcing
media development.
Identify key opportunities and Demonstrate that program
explore with respect to
development employs multiple
specific program offerings.
strategies to speed development.
Development time becomes
significantly faster, allowing more
programs to be developed,
28
GOAL 3:
Offer elearning programs that will significantly enhance enrollments at CSU.
Objectives
Strategies
Benchmarks
What are the specific,
What specific action steps
What indicators will mark
measurable targets that will
and/or resources achieve
progress along the way?
address the goal?
these objectives
Obj 3.1
3.1a
Offer online and hybrid
Build new programs with a
See Obj 2.3 above
degree completion programs limited set of alternative
that support adult learners at delivery models tuned
CSU Centers and other offspecifically for adult
campus locations.
learners.
3.1b
Prioritize development of
general education courses,
electives, and other courses
most in demand for students
to complete degrees.
3.1c
Identify potential programs
with the greatest need and
potential and build a business
case for offering these
programs in elearning
formats.
3.1d
Revise the course scheduling
Discuss strategy for
prioritization with new
Director of General
Education. Articulate
priorities in writing.
Identify at least 4 potential
programs by Fall, 2007.
In conjunction with
appropriate departments,
develop case statement and
market research for each by
Jan 1.
29
Outcomes
How will we know when the
objectives have been achieved?
New elearning programs become more
competitive because alternative
delivery models have been used.
Offer a complete General Education
package based on these priorities.
Begin offering at least 3 new elearning
programs by Fall 08
Decrease time to completion
significantly for elearning programs.
process to provide improved
course sequencing for
students.
3.1e
Work with Centers to align
schedules and course
offerings.
Include a 2-4 year scheduling
cycle for as part of each
program proposal
eLearning programs are competitive
because time-to-completion can be
Consult Centers with new
driven by student need versus
elearning programs proposals scheduling availability.
and vet course delivery
cycles for potential issues of
hang-ups.
3.1f
Create a 3-5 year
development plan for
proposed new courses,
course sequences, and
delivery modes to support
adult learners.
Obj 3.2
Offer online and hybrid
graduate programs that can
serve regional, national, and
international students.
3.2a
Complete development of
existing elearning graduate
programs.
3.2b
Develop a 3-5 year
development plan for
proposed new graduate
elearning programs.
Completion of existing
programs serves as a model
for development of
additional, new programs.
Identify all programs
currently offered in hybrid or
partially online modes.
30
Offer at least 2 existing programs in
completed form by Fall 08.
Offer 2 new elearning graduate
programs by Fall 09 and 2 additional
programs by Fall 10.
3.2d
Develop and utilize a
checklist for international
delivery to include as part of
graduate program design and
development.
Obj 3.3
Offer online courses and
programs that will increase
the number of transfer
students enrolling at CSU
3.3a
Identify courses and course
clusters that most serve
transfer students. Prioritize
these courses for
development.
3.3b
Aggressively pursue
partnerships with
Community Colleges to
develop transfer programs.
3.3c
Develop a complete general
education package for
delivery via elearning.
Obj 3.4
Develop partnerships with
other institutions and
consortia to provide
elearning programs.
3.4a
Evaluate and pursue
membership in existing
consortia to provide new
avenues to deliver programs
or develop partnerships.
Creation of a working list of
courses needed and not
available online and
priorities for development in
phases.
Meet routinely with
community college partners
to discuss specific needs and
how CSU can offer elearning
programs to fill those needs.
See above
Identify a list of potential
opportunities and partners to
pursue and evaluate.
31
Completion of phase one courses by
Fall 08. (up to 10 courses)
Completion of phase two courses by
Fall 09. (up to 15 courses)
CSU develops 2 new programs per
year based on community college
partnership or enhanced transfer
options.
Offer joint program and join
consortium that helps achieve
elearning goals.
3.4b
Approach other State
universities in Ohio to
identify possible programs
and opportunities for
collaboration.
3.4c
Survey regional business to
identify opportunities for
new and existing programs.
Develop survey tool and list
of businesses to survey.
32
Offer at least 2 new, successful
programs generated from survey
responses.
GOAL 4:
Develop a sustainable organizational model for elearning that promotes both growth and quality and fosters internal and
external collaboration.
Objectives
What are the specific,
measurable targets that will
address the goal?
Obj. 4.1
Establish the Center for
eLearning as the point of
central coordination for
University’s elearning
initiative.
Strategies
What specific action steps
and/or resources achieve
these objectives
4.1a
Clearly define Center for
eLearning services that
include technical,
instructional, and project
management support for
developing elearning
programs.
Benchmarks
What indicators will mark
progress along the way?
Outcomes
How will we know when the
objectives have been achieved?
Articulate services, goals,
and mission for Center in
publications, documents, and
website.
Deliver services that expand the
strategic role of the Center in
developing elearning programs and
courses with academic units.
4.1b
Develop more sophisticated
tracking of elearning data to
report trends and identify
appropriate responses to
direct those trends toward
success.
Develop concrete reporting
requirements in conjunction
Disseminate periodic reports, develop
with Institutional Research
yearly goals based on data.
and other appropriate units so
data can be collected going
forward.
Offer new elearning programs that
demonstrate successful collaboration
with academic units and more strategic
role for Center for eLearning.
4.1c
Develop several new
elearning programs that
demonstrate more strategic
role for Center for eLearning.
33
Obj 4.2
Coordinate marketing
responsibilities to provide the
highest levels of visibility
and response to potential
student populations.
Obj 4.3.
Coordinate responsibility for
elearning delivery services
through a single office.
4.2a
Establish an eLearning
Marketing Team to provide
oversight for all elearning
marketing activities and to
work with programs to
develop marketing strategies
for elearning programs.
Identify participants and
charge for marketing team.
Complete and execute a successful
marketing plan
4.2b
Establish an elearning
marketing web site to
provide program information
and gather inquiries for all
elearning programs.
Identify competitive websites Launch a fully functional web site by
March 2008.
as models; develop
comprehensive site plan and
site content.
4.2c
Centralize responsibility for
all marketing of elearning
programs, in coordination
with Marketing and Public
Relations.
4.3a
Establish an eLearning
Services Coordinating Team
with stakeholders from
appropriate campus units
related to elearning delivery
services.
Demonstrate the impact of marketing
efforts in meeting or exceeding
enrollment targets for new elearning
programs.
4.3b
Develop comprehensive
marketing plan with
marketing team
Identify participants and
charge for this team.
Successful implementation of service
enhancements resulting from this
team’s efforts. CSU elearning support
services rival competitor services.
See 4.1a above
See 4.1a above
34
Define categories of delivery
services and responsibilities
between the campus units
and the Center for eLearning.
4.3c
Implement service metrics
for each category of service
and assess annually.
Obj 4.4
Develop a collaborative
program development
process that includes
elearning delivery along with
academic development.
4.4a
Facilitate a program
development process with
departments to create a
comprehensive program
proposal and budget.
4.4b
Develop models for
elearning delivery that can be
used as building blocks for
program development.
Obj 4.5
Develop a budget framework
and process that identifies
and allocates costs for
elearning and allows for long
4.5a
Establish an ad hoc elearning
budget model task force to
develop a program-level pro
forma that distributes costs
Identify minimal, desired,
and ideal service metrics for
each category or service
Identify 2-3 programs to
build a demonstration model
for this process.
Produce yearly report on service
metrics and demonstrate progressive
movement toward higher levels of
service annually.
Identify and implement refinements as
a result of this experience. Other
programs actively seek collaboration
because of the successful
implementation of programs using this
model.
Develop competitive analysis
showing different delivery
Offer 2-3 new programs based on
modes used by others.
alternative delivery modes or
Justify delivery modes for
schedules.
new elearning programs in
terms of market/student
needs as well as academic
integrity.
Create budget templates and
forecasts to expose and
overall picture of elearning
costs and revenues
35
Meet or exceed all budget targets
annually. Revise budget model as
needed.
term program delivery and
growth.
and projects enrollments and
revenues.
36
GOAL 5:
Develop a delivery and support system that provides consistent, satisfying, and seamless educational experiences for elearning
students and faculty.
Objectives
Strategies
Benchmarks
Outcomes
What are the specific,
What specific action steps
What indicators will mark
How will we know when the
measurable targets that will and/or resources achieve
progress along the way?
objectives have been achieved?
address the goal?
these objectives
Obj 5.1
5.1a
Provide a coordinated point Develop an elearning
Identify the list of key offices eLearning website surfaces all
of access to services to meet “portal” site that surfaces
and services needed to support important information and service
specific needs of elearning
important information and
gateways to support elearners.
elearners. Surface important
students.
access to elearning services.
information for elearning from Students have a single point to access
all services.
each of these service areas.
5.1b
Coordinate with campus units Prioritize services in terms of
essential, desired, and ideal.
to develop web pages or
areas targeted specifically to
Develop clearly articulated
elearning students.
Annual audit/ review of services
metrics for each area of
demonstrates steady improvement and
services.
5.1c
surfaces priorities for enhancements.
Establish an eLearning
Services Coordinating Team
with stakeholders from
appropriate campus units
related to elearning delivery
services.
(Same as 4.2a)
37
5.1d
Audit selected areas of
student service each year
(using a tool such as
CENTSS).
5.1e
Revise scheduling system
and database for elearning
courses so courses are
identified within the
registration system clearly,
accurately, and in a timely
fashion.
Obj 5.2
Implement a consistent,
ongoing assessment
program focused student
and faculty experience with
elearning courses and
programs intended to
promote continuous
improvement of services.
5.2a
Develop survey instruments
to assess student and faculty
services and support. Deploy
to all elearning courses each
term. Report data widely to
the campus.
5.2b
Use Flashlight or similar
tools to partner with
departments to undertake
program specific
assessments.
Gather audit team members
and identify audit tools and
procedures.
eLearning course types
definitions approved by Fall
07.
Registration system testing
completed by late Fall 07.
All elearning courses are clearly
identified within Campusnet so
students know requirements for
elearning courses as they register.
Scheduling changes implement for
Fall 08 registration cycle (Feb 08).
Recommendations for
changes to scheduling process
presented by Sept 07.
Establish task force to
determine requirements for
course evaluation system.
Evaluate competitive products
and draft RFP.
Establish procedures for
administering course
evaluations according to
College/Departmental
requirements
38
Implement a course evaluation system
and related procedures that adhere to
all academic and contractual
requirements for administering and
using course evaluations.
Obj 5.3
Ensure that learners are
prepared for elearning
delivery and elearning
experiences.
5.3a
Promote utilization of
elearning readiness
assessment as part of the
advising process.
5.3b
Develop an elearning
orientation course and
promote use for all new
elearning students and
faculty.
5.3c
Provide standard
documentation for all
elearning courses regarding
expectations for elearning
and success strategies.
Obj 5.4
Establish the Center for
eLearning as the single
point of service for faculty
elearning support.
5.3d
Include links in the
registration system to
elearning expectations for
various types of elearning
courses.
5.4a
Coordinate with other
campus units to provide
“front door” technology and
instructional design services.
Most elearning students complete a
Adopt a readiness assessment readiness survey prior to enrolling in
tool and make available on the their first online course. Advisors
web.
routinely use this assessment and
discuss results with elearning
Make an orientation available students.
to all students
Faculty and students use orientation
course to reduce need for technical
support. Some programs require
completion of an enhanced orientation
Create and disseminate
prior to select lower-level courses.
standard elearning
documentation
All elearning courses use the standard
documentation to provide essential
information on how to get help,
student roles and responsibilities in
elearning, and other essential
information.
Publish/disseminate regular
news and information to all
faculty.
39
All faculty know where to access
elearning services and what kinds of
support are available.
Work more closely with
other units to coordinate
resources.
5.4b
Publish a campus guide for
elearning faculty that
identifies available services,
resources, and technology.
Obj 5.5
Develop elearning
infrastructure to provide
improved online services
and a complete set of
updated technology tools.
5.4c
Monitor ongoing legislative,
technological, and
competitive developments
affecting elearning and
disseminate relevant
information and
recommendations.
5.5a
Acquire or develop an online
course evaluation system.
5.5b
Research and make
recommendations for a web
conferencing system to
support synchronous
learning, orientations, and
faculty/staff development.
Faculty regularly contribute news and
Create a faculty development information about their elearning
“curriculum” that includes
activities to Center publications/news
clear development paths for
channels.
faculty to use in learning more
about elearning.
A community of learners emerges
among faculty supported by the
Center for eLearning.
Develop a task force or
multiple task forces to
evaluate requirements for each
element in the infrastructure.
Develop RFPs as needed.
Build infrastructure
improvements into the budget
planning process for
elearning.
40
CSU elearning infrastructure develops
as a unified system that provides
essential elements of instructional
delivery and support for students and
faculty.
5.5c
Provide campus wide support
for Web 2.0 tools such as
blogs, wikis, and social
networking systems.
Prioritize infrastructure
improvements based on
demonstrated needs and
impact on student learning.
5.5d
Implement a help desk
tracking and knowledgebase
system to provide enhanced
technical support for faculty
and students.
Obj 5.6
Establish clear rewards and
incentives for faculty who
participate in elearning
activities and teaching.
5.5e
Develop the capability for
content repositories to
facilitate easy reuse of
learning objects and content.
5.6a
Develop compensation
guidelines for faculty
participation in course
development and review
activities.
5.6b
Recognize outstanding
elearning courses.
Identify specific roles for
faculty within the course
development process.
Establish guidelines for
compensation for roles as
appropriate.
Colleges and Department adopt and
use guidelines to provide incentives to
faculty.
Guidelines are widely understood and
accepted.
Develop a criteria and process
for recognizing outstanding
elearning courses, based on a
voluntary review process.
Faculty seek to have their courses
recognized as outstanding elearning
courses.
41
5.6c
Recognize outstanding
elearning faculty
Develop a criteria and process
for recognizing outstanding
elearning courses, based on a
voluntary review process.
42
Faculty seek identification as
“Outstanding eLearning Faculty.”