August 16, 2012 To: Steve West, Interim Director, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences From: Dean Glawe, Chair, Alternative and Emerging Instructional Approaches Committee Re: Summary of Committee activities The Alternative and Emerging Instructional Approaches Committee was formed by Tom Hinckley in January, 2012. He named the following members of the Committee: Graham Allan, Bruce Bare, Renata Bura, David Campbell, Jerry Franklin, James Fridley, Dean Glawe, Robert Harrison, Kevin Hodgson, Matthew McLaughlin and Sarah Reichard. Dr. Hinckley’s charge to the committee consisted of the following: Complete an Assessment of Instructional Delivery Methods that could increase SEFS’
efficiency, enrollments, and SCH, and resolve bottlenecks, while at the same time ensuring
quality. Identify the full suite of options available today, including those used both in the
School and other CoEnv units. Consider both technological options and options that employ
non-traditional instructors and non-traditional approaches. Provide best practices associated
with each option. Consider whether on-line degree/course options are feasible for SEFS.
Review the structure and functioning of the Western Governor’s University. The Committee met for discussion several times during the winter and spring quarters, and used email and developed a website to facilitate additional discussions and work. The Committee website may be viewed at: https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/sefsaeia/27673/179361 The website includes pages that hold meeting minutes (https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/sefsaeia/27673/179363), Committee information and discussion posts (https://catalyst.uw.edu/gopost/board/sefsaeia/26151/), links to online reports, news items about educational technology, resources for SEFS teachers, and examples of online course materials (https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/sefsaeia/27673/179365). Following is information about the Committee’s progress toward the goals listed in the charge to the Committee: Complete an Assessment of Instructional Delivery Methods that could increase SEFS’
efficiency, enrollments, and SCH, and resolve bottlenecks, while at the same time ensuring
quality. Identify the full suite of options available today, including those used both in the
School and other CoEnv units. Consider both technological options and options that employ
non-traditional instructors and non-traditional approaches. The Committee surveyed SEFS faculty for information about current use of online course delivery and associated technological aids to teaching. Following is the summary of the survey report (attached): “In May 2012, the SEFS AEIA committee initiated a faculty survey of instructional approaches in use at the school. Committee discussions had focused on the use of online materials, so most of the questions investigated the use and application of online resources. Most questions were designed so that statistics could be generated from the results. Some assumptions must be made in order to generate 2 the most accurate statistical estimates. Of approximately 45 regular faculty members, 37 responded to the survey and 2 provided written information instead of survey responses. To supplement this information, a survey of online resources in use within 66 existing course websites was also conducted. Survey responses, website survey information, and estimated percentages are all included in the following report. Summaries incorporate faculty written responses to short‐answer questions, submitted written information, and information from committee discussions.” A summary of some of the survey results includes: 







The majority of SEFS faculty provide class presentations online. Various tools are used by SEFS faculty, including Catalyst, GoPost, and Commonview. Five faculty members teach at least one online course. Online and hybrid (partial online) courses include BSE 104, 190, 211, ESRM 100, 200, 201, 250, 381, 470, Q SCI 190, 381. Online courses generally have enrollments of more than 100 students. Enrollment figures indicate that students in online courses represent a substantial percentage of total enrollments in SEFS. Many faculty members direct students to informative websites or other online resources to prepare for classes, but no courses use their own wikis or online encyclopedias. “Clickers” are used in only one course. Regarding non‐technology‐based teaching methods, almost half of faculty members use small‐group discussions and student presentations. Survey results indicate that SEFS faculty already use a variety of online and hybrid approaches to teaching, and that such courses enjoy strong enrollments and make a significant contribution to the teaching metrics for the School. There appears to be a substantial amount of existing faculty expertise that could be used to increase SEFS involvement in such activities. The Committee website includes a variety of resources that could be used by SEFS faculty, including external websites with course content that could be used to provide students with background material that cannot be covered during class times. Such websites include Udemy and Khan Academy, as well as information for online teachers and natural resources disciplines (see https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/sefsaeia/27673/179365 for the complete list). Further work must be done to evaluate non‐traditional teaching activities in other units within the College of the Environment, as well as to develop clear plans on how current SEFS offerings might be expanded. Given that funding for course development appears to be a significant issue, issues regarding how courses are funded, and how course revenues are generated and shared, will need particular attention. Consider both technological options and options that employ non-traditional instructors and
non-traditional approaches. Committee discussions included a wide range of topics including using gps and other tools on field trips, developing specialized teaching facilities in SEFS and others. Following up on these initial discussions 3 may yield fruitful ideas for plans that could further enhance SEFS teaching quality and course enrollments. Consider whether on-line degree/course options are feasible for SEFS.
The Committee determined that a variety of Universities are currently offering or developing
online degrees in subject areas similar to those included in SEFS. These include the Master
of Science Degree in Forestry Distance Program at Mississippi State University
(http://www.distance.msstate.edu/forestry/); the following online degrees at Oregon State
University: B.S. in Fisheries and Wildlife Science (http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/onlinedegrees/undergraduate/fw/), B.S. in Agricultural Sciences
(http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online-degrees/undergraduate/ag/), B.S. Environmental
Economics and Policy (http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/onlinedegrees/undergraduate/eep/), B.S. Environmental Sciences
(http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online-degrees/undergraduate/es/), B.S. Horticulture
(http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online-degrees/undergraduate/horticulture/), and the
B.S. Natural Resources (http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/onlinedegrees/undergraduate/nr/). The University of Idaho offers an online Master of Natural
Resources degree
(http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/mymnr/documents/MNR%20Introductory%20letter.pdf).
Washington State University recently launched their “Global Campus” which, while currently
not offering degrees in areas encompassed by SEFS, does include several agricultural
programs and will expand into other degree offerings in the near future. Closer to home, in
the future the UW Engineering Master’s degrees will be entirely online.
The fact that so many new programs are springing up suggests that it would certainly be
feasible technically for SEFS to offer its own online degree programs, particularly since our
numbers already include effective online teachers. Further discussion would be warranted
to determine whether faculty and administrators would support such initiatives, how such
efforts would be financed, and how any SEFS offerings would differentiate themselves in
what appears to be an increasingly crowded marketplace.
Review the structure and functioning of the Western Governor’s University. Western Governor’s University (WGU) buys the rights to online courses developed by faculty at various universities and uses them as the basis for its own course offerings. Students work with mentors (tutors) as they proceed through courses. The University offers its own degrees. Its enrollments have been rising steadily, suggesting that there is demand for online instruction from a reputable source. WGU does much of its recruiting through social media and commercial spots on broadcast media. In addition, much of the marketing is directed toward employers who frequently provide assistance to employees enrolling in WGU degree programs. Initially there was some interest as to whether WGU might be a potential partner, but it seems more accurate to regard them as an alternative source of degrees (i.e., a potential competitor for students). Some concluding thoughts: 4 So far the Committee has made a useful start in addressing the issues included in the charge to the Committee. Information complied by the Committee indicates a history of online instructional efforts in SEFS reflecting many successes, particularly impressive given that these efforts arose mostly through the interests of individual faculty rather than a SEFS mandate to pursue such opportunities. Further work will be necessary to clarify whether and how a broader effort in online instruction could be developed. Since the Committee first was formed, the global environment in online education has changed rapidly, and online instruction appears to have captured the imaginations of political leaders and the public. Furthermore, the College of the Environment and SEFS are maturing in their new roles, and new mechanisms for planning and funding instructional initiatives likely will emerge. It would be useful for the charge to the Committee to be reviewed in the near future so that it can be modified to take into account of such new developments. 5 SEFS Alternative and Emerging Instructional Approaches Committee Summary of Faculty Survey May, 2012 In May 2012, the SEFS AEIA committee initiated a faculty survey of instructional approaches in use at the school. Committee discussions had focused on the use of online materials, so most of the questions investigated the use and application of online resources. Most questions were designed so that statistics could be generated from the results. Some assumptions must be made in order to generate the most accurate statistical estimates. Of approximately 45 regular faculty members, 37 responded to the survey and 2 provided written information instead of survey responses. To supplement this information, a survey of online resources in use within 66 existing course websites was also conducted. Survey responses, website survey information, and estimated percentages are all included in the following report. Summaries incorporate faculty written responses to short‐answer questions, submitted written information, and information from committee discussions. Question 1: Do you provide any course material online for any courses you teach? This can include presentations, lab instructions, videos, or audio files. Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage I provide online presentations 28 28 62% I provide online lab instructions 17 38% I provide online video or audio material 9 2 20% I provide other online material 28 62% A majority of faculty and nearly half of existing websites provide class presentations online. This seems to be the most common use of online resources for our school. Other online course material is also well represented. A majority of faculty responded that they provide other online material, which was an unexpected result. It is difficult to determine what sort of other online material may be in use for courses, but some of this material is probably represented in responses to other survey questions. In general, the interest in online resources is high among faculty members. Nearly all faculty members either provide online materials or are interested. Some commented that they prefer interacting with students directly, and many mentioned that time or cost prevented them from making more online resources available. A few were concerned about copyright issues for online material. Question 2: Do you use any blogs, online collaborative tools, or UW Catalyst Tools in your courses? UW Catalyst tools include CommonView websites, GoPost discussion 6 groups, Collect It for file drop­boxes, ShareSpaces for shared files, and QuickPoll and WebQ for surveys. Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage I use CommonView for course websites 17 9 38% I use GoPost discussion groups for courses 20 13 44% I use Collect It to collect course assignments 16 10 36% I use ShareSpaces for collaborative course document work 4 9% I use QuickPoll to collect student input 2 4% I use WebQ for student surveys 8 18% I use other Catalyst tools not mentioned 10 22% I use non‐Catalyst blogs for discussion groups 1 2% I use other online collaborative tools 3 1 7% The UW Catalyst online tools were well represented in faculty responses. GoPost, a tool for online discussion groups was the most widely used, but Commonview for websites and Collect It for online drop‐boxes were also frequently used. The survey of existing course websites reflected the same trends, but had lower numbers. This suggests the presence of websites that were not surveyed or the use of Catalyst tools independently of websites. There are two other Catalyst tools, UMail, for mail links on web pages, and GradeBook, for managing grades online that are also available. These have some use according the responses about other Catalyst tools. Faculty members at SEFS do sometimes use non‐
Catalyst tools, but not often. This may indicate that Catalyst is an appropriate toolset for most faculty, or at least often considered for online collaboration at the school. One faculty member commented that the Catalyst tools are not user‐friendly, but it appears that their convenience or availability overcomes this problem for most faculty members. Question 3: Do you teach any courses that are fully online or hybrid online/classroom? 7 Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage 5 11% I teach several online courses at SEFS 2 4% I teach one or more hybrid online courses at SEFS 2 3 4% I teach UW online courses outside of SEFS 0 0% I teach one or more UW hybrid online courses outside of SEFS 1 2% I teach online courses outside of the UW 0 0% I teach one online course at SEFS According to the survey responses and existing course websites, several faculty members teach online or online hybrid (both online and classroom) courses at SEFS. Historical enrollment figures indicate that these courses are very popular, and represent a large percentage of total enrollment. Courses include BSE 104, 190, 211, ESRM 100, 200, 201, 250, 381, 470, Q SCI 190, 381, and one WSU course. These courses generally have enrollment greater than 100 students, and ESRM 100 often has several hundred students enrolled. At least one faculty member would like to make online courses available outside of the UW. Some faculty members mentioned that identifying students is a problem with online testing. For this reason, some hybrid courses require students to take exams on campus. The variety of courses involved suggests that online courses are not limited to just introductory courses or courses covering specific topics. Several faculty members did comment that online courses should be limited to introductory courses though. No graduate courses are taught online, and many faculty members commented that this would not be appropriate. Face‐to‐face interaction was considered critical for these courses. In general, most faculty members are open to teaching online courses in the future. About 25% are not interested or did not respond. Of those, some felt that student knowledge could not be assured and that online courses do not have lasting impact. At least one faculty member was concerned about the intellectual property of course content being pirated or used inappropriately. When asked if SEFS should offer an online degree program, about half of faculty members responded negatively or did not respond. Most did not elaborate on their reasons, but a few indicated that discussion and interaction are not the same or that the field is unsuitable. Others were interested in seeing an online degree program develop in the future. Question 4: Do you use any textbooks that are available in electronic form, either exclusively or as a supplement to a printed text? This includes the UW Pilot eText 8 program or any textbooks available for e­readers, such as Kindle, Nook, or iPad, as well as textbooks with pdf copies available. Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage I will participate in the UW Pilot eText program 0 0% I use electronic textbooks for e‐readers exclusively for at least one class 1 2% At least one of my textbooks is also available for e‐readers 4 9% At least one of my textbooks has a pdf version available to accompany the printed text 3 7% Use of electronic textbooks is uncommon at SEFS. A few courses offer textbooks that can be used with e‐readers. These include BSE 422, CFR 502, 509, 521, ESRM 100, 101, 201, 235, 412, 490, Q SCI 190, and 381. This list does include a few graduate courses. No faculty members are participating in the UW Pilot eText program, which facilitates the use of electronic textbooks, suggesting there is not necessarily great interest in this trend. One faculty member felt that e‐readers are not appropriate for technical material. A few faculty members make course handouts or other material available as pdf documents online. These materials can be used with e‐readers. Question 5: Do you use any form of lecture capture for your courses, such as video or audio recording, or saving of smartboard notes? Or do you make in­class presentations available online? Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage I video record lectures and make them available online 3 1 7% I audio record lectures and make them available online 3 1 7% I capture smartboard notes and make them available to students 0 0% I make class presentations available online 24 28 53% 9 Again a majority of faculty members make class presentations available online, and this is the most commonly used form of lecture capture. A few faculty members make video or audio material available. Some faculty members commented that this process can be difficult and that they would benefit from better resources, such as better software. Some faculty members would like to provide audio and perhaps video for courses in the future. Smartboards, which can capture notes written in class, do not seem to be used at SEFS. Question 6: Do you use “clickers” in any of your courses? These are wireless electronic devices for collecting student input during class. Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage I use “clickers” 1 2% 0 0% I use something similar to “clickers” The use of electronic student input devices is low at SEFS. They are only used in ESRM 100. This suggests that they may not have an application in most SEFS courses. Question 7: Do you use any form of peer instruction in your courses, such as student discussions in small groups, peer­graded quizzes, or student lectures or presentations (excluding online tools or material)? Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage I use small‐group student discussions 21 47% I use student‐graded quizzes 0 0% I use student lectures for teaching other students 4 9% I use student presentations for teaching other students 20 44% This question addresses some non‐technology‐based alternative teaching methods. Almost half of faculty members use small‐group discussion and student presentations to facilitate learning. This covers a broad range of courses, both undergraduate and graduate. A few use student lectures. Most faculty members responded that they use these alternative methods and others, but sometimes with mixed results. There is an interest in increasing the use of small group discussions. Question 8: Do you ask students to use online resources, such as wikis, online training, or informative websites to solve problems or prepare for class? 10 Responses Survey responses Course websites Estimated Percentage I use a wiki for my course 0 0% I direct students to Wikipedia or other wikis to answer questions 4 9% I direct students to online training to prepare for class 7 2 16% I direct students to informative websites to prepare for class 17 38% Many faculty members direct students to informative websites or other online resources to prepare for classes. Although no courses use their own wikis, or online encyclopedias, a few direct students to such resources to answer questions.