Distance Education Steering Board Meeting
March 30th-31st, 2006
Juneau, Alaska
AGENDA-March 30, 2006
P
1. Welcome
2. Representative campus reports
3. Report of results of ETT business meeting
4. Status of Distance Ed in Alaska
5. AK ICE presentation
6. Distance education gateway
7. Mary Lou Madden report
8. Specific details of appropriate metrics for
measurements of dist. education efforts at UA
9. UAS Nursing program example
10. Group discussion
11. Create 90 work groups
12. Adjourn
x
x
x
AGENDA-March 31, 2006
1. Review of previous day actions
2. 90 day work groups
3. Allocation of project funds
4. Select locations for iTeach seminar
5. Additional issues from previous day
6. Set dates for Fall 06 and Spring 07 meeting
E
A
PRIMARY TEAM
P
PRIMARY TEAM
GUESTS
x
x
x
x
Karen Perdue, ETT chair
Curt Madison, DESB Chair
Karen Schmitt
Pat Pitney
Jason Ohler
Steve Smith
Susan Grigg
Bernice Joseph
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Donna Schaad
Doug Desorcie
Heidi Simmons
Holly Royce
Joe Mason
Kate Gordon
Katy Spangler
Margie Draskovich
Gwen White
Joe Hardenbrook
Donna Hertzler
Matt Olsen
Ted Kassier
Bob Briggs
Christen Bouffard
x
x
x
Mary Snyder
Steve Hamilton
Saichi Oba
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Melissa Brown
Robert Perkins
Sheri Denison
Steve Gillon
Susan Warner
Susie Feero
Victor Zinger
x
x
X
Bill Butler
Cathy LeCompte
E
A
1. Welcome
President
Hamilton
Karen Perdue
Curt Madison
DISCUSSION:
 A meeting report of yesterday will be available for everyone.
 Karen Perdue: ETT strategic initiatives, Effort started 18 months ago to focus on distance education to help
improve offerings and support faculty. Budget 06=$510,000. $346,000 to CDE for Curt and webmaster, $90,000
for travel, $113,000 to support help distance education partnership.
 Allied health and nursing instructional designers, working on a list of courses. Some funding is available for
project costs and studies we want to do.
 President Hamilton committed to help Mat-Su to create more distance education courses. FY07 has $100,000 for
faculty projects.
 A lot has been done in the last year, Phase 2 of the gateway, program specific projects, AK ICE, contract with
Mary Lou Madden for a review of business models for distance education, and the Status of Distance Education
in Alaska report.
 We need to think about incentives for distance education. We can start with the metrics and count within the
system. There is a document in your packet about statewide usage for distance education. We need feedback on
that document. We need to lay groundwork on what’s going on in distance education.
 The Instructional Design Job Family is in process with a final draft.
 ETT and DESB help support, iTeach and iDesign for faculty development.
LED BY:
ACTION:
RESPONSIBLE:
WHEN:
Distance Education Steering Board Meeting
March 30th-31st, 2006
Juneau, Alaska
2.
Representative
campus reports
LED BY: Curt
Madison
3. Report of
results of ETT
business
meeting
DISCUSSION:
Each representative typed their comments into the GroupSystems tool. All comments are part of the meeting record. The
complete record is on the ETT and DESB websites as a meeting report resource.
ACTION: Include the comments in the report to the Chancellors
RESPONSIBLE: Curt Madison
WHEN: At delivery of the minutes
DISCUSSION:
The ETT group discussed emerging trends for distance education nationally and the likely impacts on Alaska. This
discussion generated strategies for mitigation of harm and leverage of advantage. Then the ETT converged on 8 items
important to address in this next year. In order of priority they are:
1. Propose an implementation of a state-wide 24/7 DE student advising desk, such as, 1-800-UADistEd. This
will require the creation of a knowledge database that advising operators could access. Much knowledge
sharing would be required of the MAUs to pull this off. The “advisors” duty is to direct callers to
appropriate program information resources.
2. Propose an implementation of a statewide 24/7 technical help desk for UA distance ed students.
3. Put the minimum standards for DE student services across all campus or learning centers into University
Regulations. Then identify resources needed to remediate the shortfalls.
4. Define the scope of need for faculty development and propose a response to the need in order to improve
distance delivery quality. Pay particular attention to education, engineering, health, and languages.
5. Derive clear, credible metrics for inputs and outputs of Distance Ed
6. Support initiatives to provide more bandwidth and education technology to students and faculty and staff
7. Select at least two case studies of DE programs and create a best-practices document for DE. Be sure to
study driving forces behind successful programs.
8. Establish a mechanism to learn the best practices of other institutions and programs.
LED BY: Bob
Briggs
4. Status of
Distance Ed in
Alaska
LED BY: Curt
Madison
5. AK ICE
ACTION: Forward priority list to DESB for consideration
RESPONSIBLE: Curt Madison
WHEN: March 31, 2006
DISCUSSION:
Need comments in the next two weeks for a final draft on the “Status of Distance Education” booklet in your packet. The
group typed comments into the meeting record document.
ACTION: collect comments and commit them to the final draft
RESPONSIBLE: Curt Madison
DISCUSSION:
WHEN: April 12th, 2006
presentation







LED BY:
Donna Schaad
6. Distance
education
gateway
LED BY:
Christen
Bouffard and
Curt Madison
Distance Education Steering Board Meeting
March 30th-31st, 2006
Juneau, Alaska
Alaska Internet Course Exchange (AK ICE) emphasizes local choice. Each campus chooses to share seats in
courses and programs. Current Beta Test participants are Kenai, Kodiak Mat-Su and Prince William Sound. AK
ICE was Beta tested with one course for each campus. Each participant campus could choose when to share,
which course to request seats, number of seats to grant and which course to market.
Implementation and lessons learned: It is important to establish a timeline when seats go into AK ICE, when
seats can be requested, when seats are granted and when the seats are released back.
All communication works through e-mail. The release back date is causing issues for students who are waiting
for the last minute to sign up.
On each campus the “champion” is vital to success. The champion has the responsibility to move course sharing
forward and make sure the system is in place.
With AK ICE registrars can work with a billing code to accelerate the process since no money has to be
transferred with JV.
There is an issue for banner committee-students in a shared course need to be placed into one Blackboard course.
At Boise the champion can work with grade sheets. Every campus needs a true champion.
The AK ICE program us currently housed at CDE. There is no charge to anyone for using AK ICE.
Implementation training is available. WICHE is implementing WICHE ICE currently.
ACTION: pursue further investigation to make AK ICE available across the UA system
RESPONSIBLE: Curt Madison
WHEN: Report at next ETT meeting
DISCUSSION:
 The new Steering Board website has all of the same information as the old website, but with a new look - see
distance.uaf.edu/steeringboard The site has both current and historical documents. The site is built with blogging
software to allow comments to be added to the website. Users can link via an RSS feed to have notices emailed to
them when changes occur.
 Phase II of the Distance Education Gateway website is current. Featuring an advanced search. The search
interface now includes: combo boxes to allow selection of multiple options.
 The person in each department who sets up courses in Banner controls information presented about courses.
Every evening the daily information is pulled from Banner.
 Feedback on new site is helpful and encouraged.
ACTION: collect feedback and implement on the Distance Education Gateway and DESB site.
RESPONSIBLE: Curt Madison
WHEN: as necessary
Distance Education Steering Board Meeting
March 30th-31st, 2006
Juneau, Alaska
7. Mary Lou
Madden report of
the business
models
DISCUSSION:
Review of business practices used in distance education.
Business plan components: product development, product marketing/delivery and customer support. In product
development I looked at who makes decision, how is it supported and whose tuition/fees? The influencing factors were
history, scope, tuition distribution mechanisms, external funding, capacity, central support and MAU philosophy. All
factors were important, but the most important were the first three.
Dr. Madden presented three models- historical, programmatic and structural.
Historical Model applies to early adopters who are primarily CRCD/Community campuses. The emphasis is on the
delivering campus. Product development is decentralized decision-making with low development cost and little formal
quality control. Product delivery involves low tech/broad reach by campus faculty. Student Credit Hours accrue to the
delivering campus. There is an expectation of the student home campus to deliver student support services. The Historic
Model has broad participation, a strong incentive to be a receiving location, but requires high home campus
involvement. There is a clear possibility for duplication, low opportunity for quality control, disincentive to deliver, lack
of capacity and a needed shift in tech support.
Programmatic Model applies to later adopters, primarily main campuses, leading to certificate/degree. Product
development involves centralized decision making, substantial development costs and quality control by program
faculty. Product delivery: generally involves higher tech, may use out stationed faculty, student credit hours accrue to
delivering campus, tuition accrues to delivering campus, fees may be split. There are some MOA’s written between
campuses notably in the Nursing Program. Customer support is the responsibility of the delivering campus. This model
needs more formal decision making, more efficient use of resources, a greater incentive to deliver, training in higher
technology. This model leads to higher development costs although there is low chance of duplication. There is little
incentive to be a receiving campus and less capacity for technical support.
Structural model applies to centralized, instructional design units who provide course delivery support, charge distance
fees, includes both soft money, base funding, and retention of tuition. This is a seamless model that flows from
instructional design support across the board to faculty the same for distance as for on campus courses. Course integrity
is the responsibility of academic program. Faculty receive good instructional design support. Programs get good
logistical support.
In summary, no one campus uses just one model. Practices are influenced by various factors. UA obtains strength in
flexibility. The full report is on the ETT and DESB websites.
LED BY: Mary ACTION: review the report
Lou Madden
RESPONSIBLE: all
WHEN: prior to next meeting
8. Metrics for
DISCUSSION:
distance ed at
Intuitional Research is creating performance measures. The document is in progress and is posted on the ETT and DESB
UA
websites.. What activities are done for distances/students that need to be recognized and rewarded? There are new
documents on the IR website showing number of FY05 graduates, what percentage of them utilized distance delivery,
the high demand areas, which degrees were awarded and how many. We are looking into retention for distance students.
Distance Education Steering Board Meeting
March 30th-31st, 2006
Juneau, Alaska
IR is soliciting comments regarding what should be measured concerning distance education.
LED BY: Gwen ACTION:
White
RESPONSIBLE:
WHEN:
9. Appropriate
DISCUSSION:
measures of
 AK Nursing Ed Taskforce April 2002:
success
 New graduate registered nurses needed to double by 2006. We have strong programs, but they need to be
discussion from
expanded to include nursing education option, distance delivery and dispersed clinical sites.
UAS
 Programs need to allow students to progress from level to level with minimal disruption/duplication.
 Programs need to mobilize resources and refine the program delivery by increasing outreach and improve
distance delivery methods. There were issues with clinical sites.
 The project team developed and tracked the expansion plan using nursing education council clinical site reps and
a donor forum.
 The project team had biannual meetings.
 Partner sites committee formed and shared information on implementation issues and drafted an inter MAU
partner sites agreement to set expectation.
 The program is interdependent with UAS campuses in Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka. The campuses prepare
students, provide clinical sites to support training and is a co-location for UAA faculty.
 UA Performance Measures: high demand job areas degrees awarded, student credit hours and headcount, student
retention, academic program outcomes assessment and strategic enrollment management planning.
 Performance goals: graduates increased/retained, credit hour/headcount increased, student success, joint
assessment and strategic enrollment management planning.
LED BY: Karen ACTION: none
Schmitt
RESPONSIBLE:
WHEN:
10. Group
DISCUSSION:
discussion
Organize Info Sources for Faculty Development Needs
In response to interest expressed by the Educational Technology Team, members of the DESB brainstormed sources of
information for discovering the faculty development needs with respect to DE. They organized their brainstorming
comments into several categories which appear below:
 Academic planning
 Surveys
 Existing tools
 Current Enrollment Statistics
 Experienced people
Distance Education Steering Board Meeting
March 30th-31st, 2006
Juneau, Alaska

Educational Design
Prioritized Needs for Information about DE
In response to a request from the Office of Institutional Research, the DESB brainstormed the kinds of information that
various university stakeholders might need to make informed decisions about distance education. They then converged
on a list of 24 information needs, which they prioritized by importance to the particular stakeholder who cast the vote.
The results in the meeting support document posted on the ETT and DESB websites.
LED BY: Bob
Briggs
ACTION: Pass the information to relevant entities in the UA system
RESPONSIBLE: Curt Madison
Adjourn ETT. Recess DESB to March 31
WHEN: as needed
March 31, 2006 Distance Education Steering Board – Day Two
1. Review of
previous day
actions
LED BY: Curt
Madison
2. 90 day work
groups
LED BY:
3. Allocation of
project funds
DISCUSSION:
Review of the previous day work.
ACTION: none
RESPONSIBLE:
WHEN:
DISCUSSION:
Formed three work groups to address top priorities identified by the ETT.
 1-800-UADistEd. A 24/7 State-wide DE advising desk to answer questions for prospective students and route
current students to their proper advisor.
 1-800-Help-Me-DE. A statewide 24/7 technical help desk for UA DE students.
 Define faculty development needs for effective DE.
ACTION: Committees selected a leader and a communication plan to create and implement their deliverable
RESPONSIBLE: all
WHEN: June 30, 2006
DISCUSSION:
The Work Groups presented their timeline and deliverable to the group. The DESB allocated funds to the groups for their
work. The maximum funding is as follows:
 Propose technical help desk across MAU, identify current tools. $6, 117.
 Propose information help desk for distance students $11,353.
 Organize intensive faculty development seminars $2,294.
All groups will function through their leader. Purchases will be approved by the Chair of the DESB.
Distance Education Steering Board Meeting
March 30th-31st, 2006
Juneau, Alaska
LED BY: Bob
Briggs
ACTION: Produce deliverable
RESPONSIBLE: all
DISCUSSION:
none
WHEN: June 30
4. Select
locations for
intensive faculty
development
seminars
LED BY:
ACTION:
RESPONSIBLE:
WHEN:
5. Additional
DISCUSSION:
issues as they
none
surfaced from
meeting
LED BY:
ACTION:
RESPONSIBLE:
WHEN:
6. Fall 06 and
DISCUSSION:
Spring 07
Fall 2006 DESB meeting is set for the week of October 20 on the Prince William Sound campus in Valdez. Spring 2007
meeting
Summit will be in Anchorage or Fairbanks.
LED BY: Curt ACTION:
Madison
RESPONSIBLE:
WHEN: