COOL Committee Report 11/17/2015
Attendees:
Andrew Pierson, Kurt Shadbolt, Lisa Ulibarri, TJ Puckett, Jon Traugott, Kirsten Olson, Wanda Wong, Laura
Alarcon, Aldrian Estepa, Richard Dinwiddie, Caren Parrish, Gareth Scott, Minta Winsor (Co-chair), Scott
Hildreth (Co-chair)
Minutes
1.
Update on incomplete course demonstrations (ESYS, F. Reyes).
Minta & Scott reached out to Wayne Phillips, who worked with Francis to make sure the course
now contains current syllabi and calendar links.
ACTION: Review team should look again at the class and make recommendations. Lisa and Andrew will
review.
2. Update on course proposals.
Almost all are completed. Kurt asked whether the DSRC consultation is a checkbox option (it is);
Minta and Scott discussed whether Nathaniel might be automatically notified via the new online
tools. Kurt also suggested we encourage proposers to include reference to the student code of
conduct as another checkbox. We also discussed how to help students be aware of their
responsibilities in taking an online/hybrid course, and Minta shared that we at least now do
have the warning screen that students must acknowledge upon registration.
We discussed how the current review system needs to be malleable, so that a reviewer might
not want to review a proposal coming from within their division or area if such a class might
down the line result in fewer assignments. We need to be sensitive to that issue.
We also discussed Jane Wolford’s excellent proposal on behalf of tutoring, so that we might be
able to offer student tutors a much more flexible way to get the necessary background
information than the current required on-campus meetings. As with prior proposals received
from our colleagues in Nursing, and Applied Technology, submitting a proposal on behalf of
“someone to be named later” poses a challenge for us. Caren pointed out that someone could
be asked at the last minute, and not have time to prepare a class delivery plan, and just want to
pick up the current plan from a pre-approved proposal. We discussed whether a more general
proposal (“vague”) might be better here to allow for changes desired. Lisa shared that Jane’s
proposal was very specific and very thorough; the question wasn’t for her, but for how others
might want to deliver the same course. While perhaps we can use the same proposal, we still
will need to have a demonstration.
ACTION: Minta will talk with Jane again to make sure that she understands how a live demo will still be
expected for compliance with the process.
Scott shared concerns over one proposal reviewed, where a colleague had initially designed a
course with very minimal student-student contact, and mostly watching/reading PowerPoint
lecture notes. We had a long discussion about this, and about our role to help colleagues
understand what can make an online class even more effective.
Finalizing comments and reviews
Minta shared that she will let proposers know of the feedback we have posted, and ask that
they respond by 12/1 in advance of our meeting on that day. We discussed whether we can
comment on comments (we can), whether we should delete comments, or track changes.
Kurt, Lisa, and Minta shared thoughts about keeping the changes suggested as complete
record.
3. Calendar and timeline for proposal review and course demonstrations.
We discussed how to identify which courses need reviews prior to launch for Spring 16, and who
might be ready for those demonstrations. We also discussed, and agreed by consensus vote
that we can hold demonstrations next semester.
4.
Update on Online Education Initiative (OEI)/Task Force
We have yet to establish our first meeting (Tuesdays at 10?) An email will be going out to
solicit additional participation. Lisa shared that she will get examples of live courses
Next Meeting: Tuesday 12/11/15
sh - 11/1715