DE Committee Workload Analysis
The DE Committee faces an enormously challenging—perhaps impossible—
workload this semester that is likely to continue for years.
Over the past two years, we have significantly strengthened the DE course
approval process. In Fall 2004, the only requirements for online faculty were to
complete initial Blackboard training, to develop a written course proposal for
review by the DE Committee during it’s bimonthly meetings, and to secure
signatures on a tracking form. By Fall 2006, those requirements were expanded
to also include an initial consultation with our Instructional Designer, an
interactive review (with DE Committee members and the proposer) of course
proposals in a Blackboard website (BOLT), an actual demonstration of the
course to members of the DE Committee, and a formative evaluation with our
Instructional Designer. This may be the most extensive review process in the
Bay 10. As a result, the required time to review and approve each proposal has
grown significantly in the past two years.
Over that same time period, the number of course proposals sent to the DE
Committee for review has tripled. In the 2004-05 academic year, the DE
Committee approved a total of 18 courses. In Fall 2006 alone, the DE
Committee approved 18 courses, and at least 40 more are in line for Spring
semester approval. The course approval workload in Fall was unmanageable,
and the workload in Spring will be impossible.
As the number of online courses has grown, so has the need to develop a more
coherent and comprehensive plan for our online offerings. In December, we
completed both our first unit plan and our first program review. The program
review submission calls for significant work to be completed this semester to
evaluate, strengthen, and expand our online offerings and to enhance student
retention and success. That expansion appears to be a very desirable goal given
significant unmet student demand for online courses, the relative
underdevelopment of our online curriculum relative to many other Bay 10
community colleges, and our enrollment challenges.
A realistic assessment would be that our workload has increased at least five-fold
in the past two years, and we continue to operate as a committee of volunteers
that meets for 2 hours per month. The provision of some release time for the
committee chair and the hire of a part-time program specialist have been helpful,
but neither expands the committee’s capacity to review proposals and collegially
develop plans for the future. Most committee members have worked beyond the
2 hours of meeting time per month, but given schedules and teaching priorities,
it’s unrealistic to expect much more. Our committee already demands
significantly more “outside the committee meeting” time than any other
committee on campus of which we’re aware.
Something must change. At our January 16th meeting, we discussed three basic
options:
1. Expand the capacity (total hours working on committee work) of the DE
Committee. This could be accomplished by expanding the size of the
committee, providing release time or additional compensation for
committee members and the chair (or co-chairs) to enable them to devote
more hours, or expanding the number of hours the committee meets. We
have, to date, not been successful in our attempts to recruit additional
committee members, and many potential members are deterred by the
apparent time commitment. We have attempted to find additional times to
meet as a committee, but given schedule conflicts and workload, have
been largely unsuccessful. Many of our current committee members are
frequently unable to attend even our currently scheduled meetings.
2. Limit the number of proposals we review. If we want to maintain our
current in-depth approval process and begin some of the more strategic
work, we could arbitrarily set a limit on the number of courses we review
each semester. A realistic limit would be perhaps 6 in-depth reviews (new
instructors) and a similar number of fast-track reviews (experienced
instructors) per semester. That would mean we would defer review of at
least 28 proposals this semester.
3. Change our review process. There are many options here. A few to
consider include:






Eliminate proposal requirements for experienced online instructors.
This could be done in conjunction with a requirement that these
instructor submit to periodic course evaluations. Another option would
be to continue to require proposal preparation, but to engage in no
formal review by the DE Committee.
Eliminate the course demonstration requirement for new instructors,
but make mentoring a requirement. The premise here is that the
mentor would ensure course quality.
Eliminate the course demonstration requirement for new instructors,
but make some type of training (@One or perhaps customized Chabot
training) a requirement for new instructors.
Eliminate the course demonstration requirement, and shift quality
control responsibilities to the divisions or disciplines. This would
require some training in many divisions.
Eliminate the BOLT discussions of course proposals.
Shift the DE review process back to Curriculum, enabling the DE
Committee to focus on faculty training and motivation, student
success, and overall strategy. This is the review process at several
local community colleges.