Teaching Technology Task Force
Final Report - Draft
May 7, 2014
1
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE
4
INTRODUCTION
6
TEACHING TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE OVERVIEW
6
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
7
SECTION 1 - REVIEW CURRENT USE OF TEACHING TECHNOLOGY IN BRADLEY UNIVERSITY’S
CLASSROOMS AND ONLINE COURSE ACTIVITIES (CHARGE 1)
9
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION
9
TEACHING STRATEGIES
9
APPLYING TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING
10
FACULTY
11
STUDENTS
14
TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
16
CLASSROOMS
16
VIDEO CONFERENCING – STANDARDS BASED
17
LECTURE CAPTURE/DIGITAL VIDEO STREAMING
17
DIGITAL VIDEO CAPTURE
17
OVER THE COUNTER CHECKOUT
17
NETWORK RESOURCES
17
COMPUTER LABS
18
SUPPORT RESOURCES: INSTRUCTIONAL, PRODUCTION, AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT PEOPLE &
SERVICES
18
INFORMATION RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY
18
COMPUTING SERVICES
18
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY & MEDIA SERVICES
18
TECHNOLOGY HELPDESK
18
CENTER FOR TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND LEARNING (CTEL)
19
SUPPORT: POLICY, PRACTICES & CAMPUS CULTURE
19
SUPPORT: INCENTIVES
20
SECTION 2 - REVIEW NATIONAL TRENDS AND BEST PRACTICES (CHARGE 2)
22
SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDATIONS (CHARGE 3)
23
SECTION 4 – POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR INCREASING BRADLEY’S ONLINE PRESENCE FOR
INDIVIDUAL COURSES AND PROGRAMS (CHARGE 4)
28
SECTION 5 - RESOURCE NEEDS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CHARGE 5)
30
CAMPUS-BASED TECHNOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS:
ONLINE AND HYBRID LEARNING
ESTIMATED COSTS TO DEVELOP AND DELIVER AN ONLINE MASTER’S PROGRAM
30
32
33
SECTION 6 - CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS
36
2
APPENDICES
38
APPENDIX A – SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHARGE 1 REPORT
APPENDIX B - SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHARGE 1 REPORT
APPENDIX C - SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHARGE 1 REPORT
APPENDIX D - SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHARGE 1 REPORT
APPENDIX E - SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHARGE 3 RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX F – CHARGE 2 REPORT
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION INTO TEACHING
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
HYBRID OR BLENDED LEARNING
ONLINE LEARNING
GROWTH OF ONLINE
BARRIERS TO ONLINE
EFFECTIVENESS OF ONLINE COMPARED TO FACE-TO-FACE
EMERGING INNOVATIONS
QUALITY ASSURANCE
COURSE DESIGN
PROGRAM/INSTITUTION LEVEL QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES
ONLINE PROGRAM RANKING CRITERIA
MODELS OF ONLINE COURSE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY
BUSINESS AND COSTING MODELS FOR ONLINE COURSES AND PROGRAMS
INSTRUCTIONAL, PRODUCTION & TECHNICAL SUPPORT PEOPLE & SERVICES
ORGANIZATION OF INSTITUTIONAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT UNITS AND SERVICES
TYPES OF SUPPORT SERVICES
POLICY, PRACTICES & CAMPUS CULTURE
FACULTY INCENTIVES AND MOTIVATION
38
41
42
43
44
45
45
50
51
52
52
52
52
52
54
55
55
56
57
57
59
59
61
62
63
WORKS CITED
65
APPENDIX G – PERTINENT DATA FROM TASK FORCE SURVEY FALL 2013
APPENDIX H – PERTINENT STUDENT MARKET DATA – 2013
71
88
3
Executive Summary
Higher education is experiencing a period of significant change. The market is facing
greater competition for students, escalating costs, and societal demands for greater value.
On one hand technology adds significant costs to an institution. But on the other hand it
has the potential to expand the student market, enhance the educational product, and
increase efficiencies of the students, faculty and staff. Through successful technology
integration and strategically grown online learning, Bradley can increase its
competitiveness, expand its reach and market share, and enhance its services and value.
Summary of Recommendations of the Task Force
Based on a thorough examination of the current integration of technology and online
education at Bradley University and a review of trends and best practices at institutions of
higher education around the nation, the Task Force recommends the following:
1. Craft and disseminate a clear vision of the role of technology and online education
for the university.
2. Strengthen relationships and communication between and among technology units
and stakeholders.
3. Increase the number of instructional technologists, instructional designers, and
media producers who help faculty enhance teaching with technology.
4. Establish a five-year replacement cycle for classroom technology and bring all
learning spaces to a desired level of network speed and reliability.
5. Recommendations for online courses and programs:
A. Lay foundation for growing online learning through review of policies,
faculty incentives, student and faculty support systems, quality assurance
measures, and compliance with state, national, and accrediting agencies.
B. Create a discernment process to help departments examine demand,
development, and evaluation of online courses and programs for their
disciplines.
C. Following discernment, if demonstrated to be advantageous, pursue online
and/or hybrid course and program development and delivery, based on
academic department’s lead.
Campus-based technology is intricately interwoven into the quality of education our
students receive, from the reliability of the network and the classroom technology, to the
ability of faculty to teach effectively with technology, to the technology-related skills our
4
students learn through their degree programs. The technology must work, and the faculty
must be well supported in their integration of technology. It all contributes to a high
quality educational experience we at Bradley expect for our students.
Online and hybrid learning presents a great potential for Bradley to expand its reach to
students unable or unwilling to come to campus. With thorough analysis of student
demand and feasibility, Bradley stands to profit from diversifying and offering online
and/or hybrid degree programs for degrees with demonstrated student demand.
This is a brief summary of the recommendations. A full reporting of the research findings
and complete details of the recommendations is organized in the following sections.
Section 1 (Charge 1) provides a review of the current integration of technology at Bradley
University. Section 2 (Charge 2) provides a summary of national trends and best practices
for using teaching technology in the classroom, hybrid and online educational delivery
formats, with the complete report included in the Appendix. Section 3 (Charge 3) provides
detailed recommendations. Section 4 (Charge 4) discusses the potential benefits of
expanding online and hybrid delivery of courses and programs. Section 5 (Charge 5)
discusses resource needs and financial projections. Section 6 has the Conclusion and a call
for the next steps to implement recommendations. The Appendices contain data collected
during the review of Bradley’s technology integration, pertinent survey results, the Task
Force report examining trends and best practices at other institutions of higher education
across the United States, a model of policies needed for delivering online programs, a
sampling of student market research, and works cited.
5
Introduction
The world of high-tech higher ed is fascinating and dynamic. The opportunity to meet the
needs of students in new ways and new formats are vast and varied. The challenge for the
Bradley University Teaching Technology Task Force has been to identify the best of the
best in technology and education, and then develop a means of matching best practices
with the tradition of excellence that already exists, in a more traditional format, on the
Bradley campus. Along the way, we’ve dreamed a little. We’ve learned a lot about what is
possible. We have questioned the resources required to successfully implement a
curriculum fueled by gigabytes and social media. Most importantly, we have worked
diligently to create a vision for the future of Bradley students, faculty, and staff to connect,
work, and learn in new ways. We have looked for a new definition to Lydia Moss Bradley’s
original vision “to found a school where young people could learn how to do practical
things to prepare them for living in the modern world”. There is no greater call to action
for this Task Force or the University when we consider what the modern world looks like
today. Technology is the driver for working and living in our modern world. We have a
calling to provide an education using and preparing students not only for the technology of
today, but also tomorrow.
Teaching Technology Task Force Overview
In May of 2013, the Vice President of Academic Affairs convened the Teaching Technology
Task Force to examine the current use of teaching technology and make recommendations
for the future. This research and recommendations in this report are to be used to set a
roadmap in defining Bradley University’s teaching technology – both in the classroom and
alternative educational delivery methods – for the next 10 years, to enhance teaching,
learning, the student experience, and Bradley’s reputation.
The Task Force was given the following five charges:
1. Review the current use of teaching technology in Bradley’s classrooms and online
course activities.
2. Review the national trends for using teaching technology and differing educational
delivery formats to Bradley’s mission.
3. Provide recommendations that align the use of teaching technology and differing
educational delivery formats to Bradley’s mission.
4. Assess Bradley’s potential benefits for increasing its online presence for individual
courses and programs.
5. Assess the resource needs and costs that would incur from increasing Bradley’s current
level of use in teaching technology and online delivery.
The Task Force was co-chaired by Barbra Kerns (Director of Instructional Technology
Division, Center for Teaching Excellence and Learning) and Dean Cantu (Chair, Department
of Teacher Education).
6
Task Force members included:
Derek Behmke, Lecturer, Chemistry
Molly Cluskey, Assistant Dean, College of Education and Health Sciences
Meg Frazier, Librarian, Cullom-Davis Library
Nial Johnson, Executive Director, Instructional Technology & Media Services
Janet Lange, Executive Director, Continuing Education
Chad Lowell, Assistant Professor, Theatre Arts
Matthew Nelson, Assistant Professor, Interactive Media
Jose Sanchez, Assistant Professor, Electrical & Computer Engineering
Stacey Robertson, Interim Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Heidi Rottier, Instructor, Marketing
Chuck West, Executive in Residence, Entrepreneurship, Technology & Law
Members of the Teaching Technology Task Force met three times over the Summer of 2013
to review and discuss seminal literature. Three members of the Task force were convened
to develop faculty and student campus surveys and met from June through October. In Fall
2013, members of the Teaching Technology Task Force were divided into two teams that
met weekly from October 2013 to December 2013. Team 1 was assigned Charge 1,
reviewing the current use of teaching technology in Bradley University’s classrooms and
online course activities. The student and faculty surveys were distributed electronically to
all students and faculty in the Fall and survey results were analyzed and then considered
by Team 1. Team 2 was assigned Charge 2, reviewing the national trends and best practices
for using teaching technology in the classroom, hybrid and online educational delivery
formats. Reports 1 and 2 for Charges 1 & 2, respectively, were submitted to the Provost in
February 2014.
In Spring 2014, all members of the Task Force rejoined to work on Charges 3, 4, and 5, to
analyze the collected information, to draft recommendations according to the Bradley
mission, to assess benefits, and consider resources needs.
Organization of this Report
A full reporting of the research findings and complete details of the recommendations is
organized in the following sections. Section 1 (Charge 1) provides a review of the current
integration of technology at Bradley University. Section 2 (Charge 2) provides a summary
of national trends and best practices for using teaching technology in the classroom, hybrid
and online educational delivery formats, with the complete report included in the
Appendix. Section 3 (Charge 3) provides detailed recommendations. Section 4 (Charge 4)
discusses the potential benefits of expanding online and hybrid delivery of courses and
programs. Section 5 (Charge 5) discusses resource needs. Section 6 has the conclusion and
a call for the next steps to implement recommendations. The Appendices contain data
collected during the review of Bradley’s technology integration, pertinent survey results,
the Task Force report examining trends and best practices at other institutions of higher
7
education across the United States, a model of policies needed for delivering online
programs, a sampling of student market research, and works cited.
8
Section 1 - Review current use of teaching technology in Bradley
University’s classrooms and online course activities (Charge 1)
Team 1 was charged with reviewing the current use of teaching technology in Bradley
University’s classrooms and online course activities. This charge included: collecting and
reviewing data; developing and distributing a campus survey on technology uses and
perceptions; analyzing the data; identifying the resources, infrastructure, and estimated
costs used to support the types of instructional technology utilized at Bradley; and
organizing the information into a cohesive report.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION
TEACHING STRATEGIES
Current teaching strategies in relation to technology can be defined by being synchronous
or asynchronous, in the classroom or online, and by how flexible the time structure is;
particularly for the learner. Synchronous meaning “real time” denotes that the course
would have a fixed time and could either be taught in the classroom or online. An
asynchronous course would be delivered online and have the potential to have a flexible
time structure. For the purpose of this document the following strategies are being defined
for further clarification.
● Blended “Hybrid” - Part of course content is delivered online asynchronously and
part is synchronous in the classroom.
● Flipped classroom, “Flip teaching” - A form of blended teaching where new course
content is delivered online asynchronously reserving classroom time for hands-on
application of learning synchronously.
● Online - Course content is delivered entirely online, maybe synchronous or
asynchronous.
● Massive open online course (MOOC) - Online course making use of the internet to
deliver all the course content in the form of videos, readings, and exercises
asynchronously. Student to student and instructor to student interaction is usually
facilitated through the use of online forums. This structure usually has the most
flexibility schedule for a student.
9
Source: http://keithtylersmith.wordpress.com/
APPLYING TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING
The current integration of technology within the classroom at Bradley University is broad.
Below is an overview of the current use of technology in regards to content delivery.
● Classroom tools – There are several “smart” classrooms that have various
equipment builds for the different colleges and departments.
● Learning Management Systems - Sakai is the only learning management system
that the university supports for use in the classroom. Sakai provides for both
synchronous and asynchronous structures that support traditional, blended, and/or
online courses (see Appendix A).
● Turnitin plagiarism checking software – Turnitin is used in conjunction with Sakai
such that students submit papers to Sakai and the assignment is forwarded to the
Turnitin Originality Check software to identify matching text between student papers
and Internet database sources. Turnitin also has an online rubric and copy mark-up
tool to allow faculty members to give feedback to students’ papers electronically (see
Appendix B).
● Classroom Response Systems (Clickers) - Approximately 10 faculty members have
been using clickers routinely in their classrooms. An initiative is underway to
standardize on one clicker manufacturer and promote the student engagement
techniques afforded by clickers.
● Mobile Learning - Currently there is no dedicated system in place for mobile
delivery of content in connection with the classroom other than Sakai having a
mobile template or theme that is viewable via a browser on a mobile device.
● Online Learning - Sakai can be utilized to facilitate teaching and learning in online
courses, as well as to support online components in hybrid or blended learning
10
environments. The slate streaming server can be used to stream pre-recorded
content (see Appendix C).
● Synchronous Communication Technologies - The University has licenses for Cisco’s
WebEx teleconference software which allows for synchronous communication
between instructors and learners. Other freely available software that has been used
for this is Skype, iChat and Google Hangout. Google Hangout is not currently enabled
for education accounts. Polycom a standards based hardware solution for
synchronous communication in GCC124 is functional but beyond end of life support
and is not used. Two high definition LifeSize systems (PNIC and HCAVC)see little use
compared to existing software solutions.
● Media Recording and Delivery - There are several classrooms that are equipped for
lecture capture. The GCC has a total of six classrooms that have an in house solution
for recording lectures from a single camera. This capture setup was created for the
COM 103 course where student presentations are captured for later viewing by the
instructor. Westlake Hall has a total of thirteen classrooms that are equipped with
the latest development on campus, offering multiple sources capture. Jobst Hall has a
single studio that is setup to record lectures for streaming. A handful of professors
are recording their lectures and making them available for students using the
university’s slate streaming server and Sakai. This method has been noted as
cumbersome for faculty as they deal with space limitations on the slate streaming
server causing them to upload videos when needed and remove them later to make
room for more videos. (College Interviews). In addition, the university has five
licensed Panopto systems that allow faculty to capture audio, video, and content
directly to a laptop for streaming purposes.
FACULTY
The Task Force Faculty Survey (2013) demonstrates that most faculty embrace some form
of technology. Eighty-six percent of participants (n=119) reported using technology to
teach.
11
Did you use any technology to teach
from Fall 2012 through Summer
2013?
Yes
86%
No
12%
No Response
2%
The Task Force Faculty Survey (2013) also found that 55% of faculty respondents adopt
new technology before most of their colleagues (n=119).
How quickly do you adopt new technology?
When it becomes
mainstream
35%
I'm one of the first…
After most of my
colleagues
4%
Before most of my
colleagues
45%
I never adopt it
3%
No Response
3%
In addition, moderate to comprehensive competence with technology was reported by 67%
of survey respondents (n=119).
12
How would you rate your current integration of
technology into your teaching?
Moderate
47%
Basic
Comprehensive
Comprehensive
20%
Moderate
No Response
1%
No Response
Basic
32%
Over 95% of faculty responding to the 2012 Faculty Sakai survey report that they use Sakai
(n=115). Of those respondents 62% have been at the University over 11 years. The most
frequently used Sakai tools reported were email, resources, grade book, announcements,
assignments, and syllabus. Over half of those using Sakai would like to see changes made to
the system, including improvements to the grade book, the testing tool, and user interface.
Details can be found in the 2012 Faculty Sakai survey. As with any technology assistance is
sometimes needed. Faculty report they are “very satisfied” with the ITAC staff assistance
and less satisfied with the help desk.
In 2013 Technology Interviews with college deans, department chairs, and faculty a variety
of interests, efforts, and perceptions were discussed. Most colleges have some interest in
online education, with most interest in graduate online courses and programs. It is felt that
online gives more flexibility for students and faculty. One college reported using faculty
from California to deliver specialized courses. While some colleges and departments feel
the University is years behind in distance education, others are satisfied with the current
focus of occasional online courses with no focus on distance program delivery. Two
colleges reported that faculty is exploring blended/hybrid courses and flip teaching with
pre-recorded content, however faculty time and server space are challenges. Two other
colleges are exploring contractual relationships with Pearson Embanet, an online learning
service provider.
Most departments/programs are engaged with technology in the classroom. Students in
the Slane College of Communications and Fine Arts have a laptop requirement for all new
incoming students. Required computers have been integrated into current courses. One
department has removed all but two desktop computers in their classrooms reallocating
space and resources for additional technology. Interestingly, faculty report a decrease in
13
sense of community as students no longer work in computer labs. A new practicum course
is being developed to re-create the social interaction and sense of community.
STUDENTS
Bradley students are savvy consumers of technology. As freshmen they are surveyed
regarding use of technology during orientation. Trends over recent years show increased
use of laptops and tablets. Most students, 56%, use Windows while 39% are Mac users. In
summer 2013, 87% of freshman were bringing smart phones to school with over 67%
having unlimited text and data plans. It is notable that 87% of the 2013 freshman class
prefer information be sent via email or text.
Bradley students were surveyed (Technology Task Force Student Survey, 2013) and 99%
report using Sakai with a 99% comfort rate (n=563). Over 25% of the students responding
to the Sakai Student Survey 2012 (n=1109) reported that they were using Sakai in fully
online or hybrid courses. Over half of the student respondents use Sakai daily. The most
frequently used apps reported were grade book, resources, assignments, announcements,
email, and syllabus. Interestingly these are the six most frequently reported tools by faculty
as well. Although 95% of faculty surveyed report using Sakai, students surveyed ask that
more faculty use the learning system.
The 2013 Technology Task Force Student Survey found that 85% of respondents rated
themselves as moderate to comprehensive users of technology (n=567). The survey’s selfselected sample represented 10% of the student body, and may reflect a more technologysavvy sample bias due to the nature of the survey. It had an even distribution of
undergraduates (Freshmen through Seniors) responding, with 10% of respondents being
graduate students.
On a scale of 1 to 4, how would you rate your current technological expertise?
In addition to using Sakai, students reported using online social networks, streaming video,
and research databases for class work (n=254).
14
What types of applications and web-based tools did you use as a student? Select all
that apply.
Most students, 59%, also indicated that they thought that the University is preparing them
to use technology when they graduate (n=251).
How would you rate your agreement with the following statement:
"The university is preparing students to successfully use technology
in their respective professions when they graduate."
When needing help with technology, most students seek assistance from classmates, family,
friends, or faculty. Half of those surveyed have not used the help desk. When asked about
the future of technology at the University the top three responses were: 1) Make campus
spaces more friendly for mobile devices and laptops (e.g. add open spaces and electrical
outlets), 2) improve the wireless infrastructure, and 3) better integrate online information,
for example My BU. The open responses to this survey resulted in many complaints
15
regarding wireless internet and faculty being technology challenged. Further study is
warranted.
TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CLASSROOMS
Approximately 130 mediated learning environments are on campus in the form of
classrooms; auditoria; computer, research and teaching labs; art studios; and
conference/meeting rooms. Classroom space has 3 basic types with variations; 1) projector
only, 2) standard, and 3) custom. Westlake Hall is custom plus (see Appendix D).
● Projector only/analog & digital connectivity
● Projector with audio playback/analog & digital connectivity
● Standard–projector, audio system, DVD/VHS playback, possible document camera,
instructor podium
● Standard (same as above) with added control
● Custom–standard with advanced control configuration with add-on features such as
lecture capture, interactive whiteboards, standard based video conferencing
(Westlake has state-of-the-art classrooms)
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
4”Crestron programmable control with screen switching
1 - HD projector
16:9 main viewing screen
1 WXGA Smart Board projector and interactive board
HD Document camera
DVD/VHS deck
Desktop PC
HDMI/RGB laptop connectivity
Wired network at instructor console
13 rooms with Lecture capture connected to a streaming video server and 2 – wall mounted
P/T/Z color network controllable cameras
● A majority of classrooms do not have permanently-assigned computer resources.
● A total of 62 of 75 identified classrooms have been upgraded to HDMI connections
to the projector. As projectors are replaced, HDMI connectivity will be added in
remaining rooms. In the IRT Annual Feedback it was reported that overall faculty
are satisfied with classrooms. There is some concern regarding the age and
consistency of the equipment. Resources need to be identified to replace aging
technology. The variety of equipment and differences in how to use the technology
across classrooms can be a challenge for faculty. Nothing but praise for the
assistance and personnel when there is a problem; however, some would like to see
24/7 technical support and support that is discipline specific. One college has two
full-time staff that oversee technology. Each college would benefit from a dedicated
IT professional.
16
VIDEO CONFERENCING – STANDARDS BASED
● Standard resolution H.321 – one room in GCC 124
● High Definition H.264 – two mobile carts HCAC & PNIC
● Web Conferencing - available any place on campus with an active network
connection
○ WebEx – two active licenses through ITMS
○ Skype – freely available
LECTURE CAPTURE/DIGITAL VIDEO STREAMING
● Panopto – five licensed systems with “lectures” streaming server; 1 dedicated room
placement in Baker B52; 1 in Mechanical Engineering; 3 for faculty laptop use.
● Crestron HD – thirteen are located in Westlake, which capture choice of audio and
content only; side by side content and video; content with Picture-in-Picture (PIP)
video; or video only with Wowza streaming server; 4 capture desktop/audio/video;
9 capture choice of desktop, laptop, document camera/audio/video).
● wmv Capture – one is located in Jobst 215 captures audio and switchable
desktop/document camera/video content with or without PIP video. Institution
wide lecture capture is problematic. IRT would favor location based systems that
could be scheduled. A dedicated lecture capture space in each college would be ideal.
DIGITAL VIDEO CAPTURE
● Quicktime capture – 6 in GCC, installed 2003, capture estimated 2,000 COM103
speeches each semester to thumb drives of students and instructors.
OVER THE COUNTER CHECKOUT
● ITMS central pool provides faculty/student/staff the opportunity to checkout data
projectors, laptops, digital audio recorders, digital video cameras, microphones,
document cameras, DVD players, large format flat screen monitors for support of
classroom or office projects
● Audience response systems- clickers (6 – 30 seat sets) are available for checkout
from CTEL/ITAC
NETWORK RESOURCES
Bradley has a 1Gb network access and 100Mb backup.
 Wired – every campus classroom has at least one active network connection.
Depending on wiring classification, speed is 10Mb or 100Mb back to the switch.
 Wireless – all campus academic buildings and living spaces are covered with access
points. Speed is dependent on A/B/G/N rating and saturation of users on one access
point. Approximately half of the existing access points need to be replaced. Faculty
and students alike complain that wireless service is not sufficient. Specifically
comments are directed at Baker, Sisson, Burgess, and several dorms, with
17
complaints of slow speed to dead spots. Fewer complaints are directed as wired
networking; however erratic speeds have been noted.
COMPUTER LABS
Computer labs are available in every college but not in every department. Replacements for
new equipment are not funded. Therefore replacements are inconsistent.
SUPPORT RESOURCES: INSTRUCTIONAL, PRODUCTION, AND TECHNICAL
SUPPORT PEOPLE & SERVICES
INFORMATION RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY
Information Resources and Technology (IRT) creates the technological environment to
support Bradley's dynamic teaching and learning community. IRT is committed to
providing high-quality infrastructure, planning, support, resources and creative production
required to maintain Bradley University's strategic teaching, learning and administration.
They are responsible for data networking (wired and wireless; computing hardware and
operating systems support; application development and maintenance; data/application
reliability and security; services like email, calendaring, course management systems; end
user support for students, faculty and staff; support of technology in the classroom;
computing and networking engineering; support of broadcast engineering for both WCBU
and WTVP; and the Peoria based National Public Radio station, WCBU.
COMPUTING SERVICES
The Faculty Laptop Program provides full-time faculty with the latest computer
technology; made available for course development, instructional, and research purposes.
The laptops are maintained on a four-year replacement cycle for full-time faculty. A limited
number of repurposed laptops are also made available to part-time faculty. FSMail and
Google Apps for Education are Google web-based programs and are the official method of
University communication for all faculty and staff. Two of the major benefits for this
system are the large mail storage space per user and the ease for sharing documents.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY & MEDIA SERVICES
Instructional Technology & Media Services (ITMS) is a comprehensive media facility within
Information Resources & Technology. ITMS offers assistance to the University community
through six service areas: Audio Visual Services, Audio/Video Production, Duplicating,
Graphics, Media Checkout, and Videoconferencing.
TECHNOLOGY HELPDESK
The Technology HelpDesk is a useful source of information for University technology
resources. The HelpDesk can assist students, faculty and staff with telephone/voicemail,
username/password, campus network and general computing information and problems.
18
CENTER FOR TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND LEARNING (CTEL)
The CTEL encourages and supports excellence in teaching, learning, scholarship,
professional activities, and service at Bradley University. The three technology missions of
CTEL are as follow:
● Provide grant opportunities to support and encourage instructional innovations,
which may include the use of technology.
● Manage all aspects of the Sakai operations.
● Provide, through the Instructional Technology Assistance Center (ITAC),
instructional technology training, development, and support for face-to-face and
online courses for the Bradley University community in support of the teaching and
learning process. ITAC provides instructional design assistance, training, exploration
and assessment of new technologies. ITAC staff can also help members of Bradley
effectively create web-based course content.
SUPPORT: POLICY, PRACTICES & CAMPUS CULTURE
The University has various policies regarding the use of technology in the classroom that
can be found in the Bradley University Faculty Handbook. These are:
1. Policy Statement on Television Instruction (p. 64)
2. Policy on On-line Education (p. 67)
3. Policy on Ethical Use of Information Technology Resources (p. 179)
The Policy Statement on Television Instruction highlights the following guidelines: 1)
released time, 2) instructional autonomy, 3) revision of recorded materials, 4)
compensation, 5) use of University produced video instruction by separate agencies or
individuals, 6) retention of education materials, and 7) grants and contract for the
development of instructional recordings. Note that the focus of the guidelines in this policy
is on outdated media (videotapes). Consequently, this policy needs to be revised to
incorporate modern technology such as digital versatile discs (DVD), Blu-ray discs, and
online streaming for face-to-face, hybrid/blended learning, and distance learning courses.
The faculty handbook defines online education as an asynchronous course that involves
primarily online interactions rather than face-to-face meetings. The Policy for On-line
Education highlights the following guidelines: 1) instructional practices, 2) faculty
qualifications, 3) faculty responsibility, and 4) University responsibility. The campus
sentiment is that the institutional policy needs to be updated, supported by the institution,
and disseminated broadly. Otherwise, the institution will be open to differences in
approach in assessment policies, encouragements, and directions. Several survey and
interview respondents commented that online course offerings should mainly be reserved
19
for January interim and summer sessions. Others indicated that Bradley’s strong point is
face-to-face interactions and small classroom environments, and believe that online
education is not sustainable at Bradley.
There is a lack of policy for the integration of online programs into Bradley’s offerings.
From the administrator interviews and the faculty survey, the philosophy is that Bradley
should not offer undergraduate programs but should venture into selected online graduate
programs.
During College Deans interviews, it was noted that the tenure and promotion guidelines do
not mention the integration of technology in teaching. One Dean suggested that guidelines
should be modified to allow tenure-track faculty to experiment with innovation with no
harm for experimenting.
The University does not have a policy that requires students to purchase a computer.
However, in the Slane College of Communications and Fine Arts, the purchase of an Apple®
MacBook Pro laptop is required. In addition, students are required to purchase Microsoft
Office and Adobe software products. Other colleges do not have computer requirements
and have opted to have computer labs as the software the students use would be too
expensive to purchase. Computer lab access policies vary by department. Some
departments have 24-lab access by having student type a code or utilize their ID for entry.
Other departments hire lab monitors and have limited access.
Bradley University has a Bradley B green campaign with the goal to reduce the impact on
the environment, while also being good financial stewards. Moving towards a paperless
campus or reducing the amount of paper used by students and faculty could be in
alignment with this campaign. A significant portion of the faculty use Sakai to post their
assignments, collect assignments, and measure students’ knowledge. However, several
student survey respondents indicated that online materials hinder their retention and
learning, and thus, impacting the quality of their education. Although the sample size for
the student survey was too small, there may be something noteworthy here as the student
adoption of e-textbooks has been slow, even though the cost incurred is about half of a
printed textbook. In the 2011-2013 academic years, the bookstore’s e-book sales
comprised of 1% of total textbook sales.
SUPPORT: INCENTIVES
While the University recognizes excellence in teaching as a Core Value at the Heart of the
Bradley experience, there are currently no technology-based recognitions or awards.
20
The University Office of Continuing Education supports distance education. The office
annually requests a call for interested faculty to develop online summer courses. The
faculty members with chosen proposals receive a summer stipend in addition to
compensation for teaching the course. The University CTEL is a resource for faculty
members. The Innovative Teaching Grant Program (TEC) grants support curriculum
development or course modification which demonstrates the prospect for innovation and
integration in course design or delivery. These awards to individual faculty or departmental
or interdepartmental faculty teams may provide released time, summer support, or other
assistance to faculty who want to develop instructional innovation. Cross-disciplinary
projects, interdepartmental faculty efforts, and integration of teaching and research are
encouraged. Deans of the colleges have discretionary funds and have been known to give
faculty additional support for creative innovation and the purchase of technology.
The recent Task Force Faculty Survey (2013) asked questions regarding teaching and the
use of technology. Those responding cited lack of resources to purchase technology as an
obstacle. However, over 50% of the respondents see incentives as a tool to encourage use of
technology as “very important” and were “satisfied” with the current incentives. Over half of
those surveyed see additional training in the use of technology as important. But
interestingly over 70% of respondents do not see online degrees as a priority for the
University.
21
Section 2 - Review national trends and best practices (Charge 2)
The second charge of the Teaching Technology Task Force was to review the national
trends for using teaching technology in the classroom, as well as hybrid and online
educational delivery formats. The Task Force researched how other institutions of higher
education have integrated technology on their respective campuses and how they were
utilizing alternative delivery formats to deliver their educational programs. This research
was analyzed and considered in the development of the recommendations to follow. The
full results of this research are included in Appendix F.
22
Section 3 – Recommendations (Charge 3)
Based on the current state of Bradley’s integration of teaching technology and online
education, and the state of national trends and best practices, below are the
recommendations of the Task Force.
1. Craft and disseminate a clear vision of the role of teaching technology for the
university
While Bradley currently offers the campus community a variety of teaching technology
opportunities, there is no clear university vision that stretches across all colleges. We
believe that the university needs a vision that will unite all the colleges and offer a clear
path toward the future. This path should be broad enough to accommodate the needs of all
academic stakeholders, while specific enough to create a sense of wholeness and purpose.
Detailed recommendations:
1. Create a high level committee that includes representatives of all academic
technology stakeholders for strategic visioning, long-term goals and strategies, ongoing planning, and resource allocation. Representatives should be led by the
Provost and include faculty involved in academic program planning from each
college and the Graduate School, the Associate Provost of IRT, ITAC, and other
technology support units.
2. Craft, disseminate, and annually review a strategic plan for the integration of
instructional technology for the university.
3. Create clear and comprehensive operational procedures and policies for use of
instructional technology.
4. Review and revise policies on tenure and promotion, faculty rewards and practices
to reinforce the vision.
2. Create a standing committee designed to strengthen relationships and
communication between and among teaching technology units and stakeholders.
The university’s approach to teaching technology is too diffuse. A new centralized
committee can drive, support, and adjust our overall vision as teaching technologies and
university needs change. This will increase efficiency and avoid duplication of resources.
Detailed recommendations:
1. Create a standing committee to oversee all teaching technology needs within the
university. The committee will be chaired by the Director of ITAC.
2. Strengthen relationships and share resources between technology units and college
and department-level support.
3. Disseminate the CTEL, ITAC, and ITMS missions by visiting departments across
campus and promoting the teaching technological resources and services available.
23
4. Increase campus awareness of teaching technology resources and services.
5. Clarify and promote available resources and services.
3. Increase instructional technologists, instructional designers, and media
producers who help faculty enhance teaching with technology.
The technological demands within all disciplines at Bradley are increasing exponentially.
The specialization of this technology has also been on the rise. We feel it will be necessary
for each college, perhaps eventually individual departments, to have a dedicated IT
professional and/or instrumentation technician whose primary objective is to serve the
faculty and their pedagogy. In addition, they will be maintaining equipment and providing
resources and training. This model exists at Bradley within and is funded by the Slane
College of Communications and Fine Arts, but is not implemented campus wide.
Detailed recommendations:
1. Introduce dedicated instructional technology and/or instrumentation specialist
professionals in each college. Each professional would report to a centralized
authority (IRT) in a model similar to that currently employed by the Advancement
Office.
2. Expand the ITAC staff to include specialized instructional designers/service
providers that are tied to specific colleges in a model similar to that currently
employed by the Advancement Office.
3. Increase media production staff to support the faculty in developing content to be
delivered electronically.
4. Maintain classroom technologies and bring all learning spaces to a desired
level of network speed and reliability.
The classroom, lecture hall, or lab setting is the initial location where the teaching/learning
experience begins for a Bradley student. It is essential that resources in these
environments be well maintained to promote and support innovative use by the faculty as
well as meet the expectations of students.
Detailed recommendations:
1. Ensure that all buildings and residential halls have reliable network and wireless
access.
2. Ensure that quads have reliable wireless access.
3. Develop a university wide student laptop policy that allows colleges to identify
technical specifications.
4. Take steps to make campus more friendly to student electronic devices, for example
by considering additional power sources when designing/reconstructing buildings.
5. Establish a technical policy or guideline that all university web-based resources are
designed using an ADA compliant and responsive design approach that ensures
information is presented in a usable manner regardless of the device used.
6. Develop an annual equipment upgrade plan and secure funding for the replacement
of outdated campus technology, such that equipment in all learning spaces will be
replaced over a five-year cycle.
24
7. Consider a technology fee for students to support technology upgrades.
Administration should consider the appropriation of the funds and how general
technology and course-specific needs can be met. Student input should be sought on
the disbursement of funds.
5. Recommendations for online and hybrid courses and programs.
The Task Force has specifically been asked to address the potential benefits to Bradley of
increasing its online presence for individual courses and programs.
The research of the Task Force demonstrates value in expanding online and hybrid course
offerings, especially in summer and interim sessions, to allow our traditional students to
take Bradley classes while they are spending the summer or winter break at home, abroad,
completing internships, or working. Additional evidence has pointed to potential need to
offer some online or hybrid courses during the Fall and Spring semesters to allow students
additional flexibility in their schedules. As faculty expand our online offerings, we find it
imperative to offer faculty a formal process and a framework for the design and
development of online and hybrid courses to include the necessary support and
infrastructure.
Online or hybrid programs can provide benefits, but the individual departments interested
in offering such programs must be diligent and execute unbiased processes to determine
student demand, program development requirements, and feasibility before launching
programs. There is an opportunity to make the University distinctive in online or hybrid
programs, however, we need to develop our own brand of excellence in online and hybrid
education. This would be reflected in our hiring practices, resources, and support. Use of
third-party vendors may provide opportunities to launch online programs, but we must
also build upon our core competencies and not dilute our brand by over-reliance on thirdparties, which are available for hire by any institution.
The recommendations regarding online and hybrid courses and programs are outlined in A
and B below.
A. Lay foundation for growing online learning through review of policies, faculty
incentives, student and faculty support systems, quality assurance measures,
and compliance with state, national, and accrediting agencies.
Detailed recommendations:
1. Conduct biennial surveys of faculty and students who teach online or take online
and hybrid courses to learn more about the motivations, needs, and perceptions of
faculty and students.
2. Improve search options in the Schedule of Classes so that students can find online
and hybrid classes in any term.
3. Improve publicity about available online and hybrid courses in all terms.
25
4. Expand resources available to students in the Schedule of Classes to help them be
successful in an online and hybrid class, such as developing a student selfassessment “am I ready for online learning.”
5. Post technology requirements, other resources, and required synchronous meeting
times for online and hybrid courses in course descriptions available at time of
registration.
6. Improve Registrar system (forms, programs, processes) for collecting and reporting
data on courses with alternative delivery formats.
7. Review access to student services for students at a distance.
8. Develop new services to support and connect online students with Bradley and each
other.
9. Explore opportunities and advantages of providing students with a mix of in-person
and online self-help tutorials for learning new applications and digital skills.
10. Inform and promote the use of Quality Matters (a program of national standards for
quality course design) for online and hybrid course design and assessment.
11. Provide training and assistance in the design, development and delivery to faculty
members offering online and hybrid courses.
12. Provide instructional design, media production, and instructional technology
expertise and support to faculty developing online courses.
13. Evaluate the need for, and the impact of, on-demand and other alternative
scheduling of online courses.
14. Review faculty incentives relative to the design and delivery of online and hybrid
courses: e.g. monetary compensation, release time, development workshops and
training, increased support (instructional designers, graphic designers, etc.), and
awards (with or without monetary compensation).
15. Examine ways to use technology to save faculty time.
16. Inform and educate faculty on state and federal laws relative to online learning
(FERPA, Accessibility [ADA], Copyright, State Authorization [SARA], Intellectual
Property), and review policies to ensure compliance.
17. Review university technology policies and faculty handbook policies for currency
and to ensure they are inclusive of online and hybrid delivery (see Appendix E for an
example listing of policies pertaining to online courses).
B. Create a discernment process to help departments examine demand,
development, and evaluation of online courses and programs for their
disciplines.
Detailed recommendations:
Based on the review of current practices – relative to course curricular design and
instructional delivery, and program needs – the following recommendations are made
concerning online and hybrid/blended-learning programs at Bradley University. It should
be noted that the following recommendations should be reviewed by the campus
community, approved by the existing governance system, and codified in a resulting
university policy.
26
1. Demand – The university policy should discuss, and support, market analysis to
determine whether there is a need/demand for an online degree program or course before
additional time and resources are invested in designing and developing such. It should
also consider what marketing resources would be required to capture desired
enrollments. This market analysis could be out- or in-sourced, but is critical to
understanding student needs/demand and existing competition (degree offerings, price,
modality, reputation of institution, accreditation, etc.) for the prospective degree program
or course.
2. Design & Development – The university should provide assistance and support to
academic units in their efforts to determine whether the department, college, and/or
university have the necessary resources (e.g., technology, faculty, staff, expertise) – or
whether an outside vendor/contractor is required – to design and develop the courses and
instructional delivery infrastructure required to deliver the online degree program in an
effective and efficient manner consistent with the expectations required of traditional
courses and programs offered at Bradley. To this end, the university should provide
faculty who will be designing online courses and developing online instructional materials
and activities with the necessary professional development experiences and opportunities.
3. Evaluation – The university policy should ensure that appropriate academic review and
assessment of online courses is required, consistent with that used in the review and
assessment of traditional courses. In addition, a suitable assessment instrument used by
students to evaluate faculty in online courses should be developed and implemented,
consistent with university policy regarding traditional courses and programs. Additional
program quality assurance methods should also be examined to ensure the academic rigor
of online courses is equivalent to that of traditional courses offered at Bradley.
Following the discernment process, if online programs are to be developed, it would be
necessary to establish a unit/office to address state compliance, quality, management of
online programs, oversight, student satisfaction and retention, and all components
associated with offering online programs.
27
Section 4 – Potential benefits for increasing Bradley’s online
presence for individual courses and programs (Charge 4)
Nationally, the demand for online courses continues to grow, and now constitutes 32% of
all college enrollments. Approximately 7 million students are taking at least one course
online, according to Sloan Consortium. Traditional students desire flexibility to allow them
to work, do internships or clinicals, or to fit an extra class into their schedules. Online or
hybrid courses provide Bradley students greater flexibility and personal choices in
scheduling their work, classes, activities, and other opportunities. Particularly, online or
hybrid courses provide students better access to Bradley courses over the summer and
interim sessions. For approximately 60% of our students, “home” is over 100 miles from
Bradley’s campus. Summer and interim online classes allow students to go home for break
periods and continue their education at Bradley. If Bradley doesn’t offer online courses
that students need (or are interested in taking), other institutions will provide them, such
as community colleges or institutions offering online courses.
Since 2009, Bradley has increased the number of summer online course offerings from 68
to 111 and student enrollments in online courses have increased from 486 to 581, during a
time when overall enrollment figures have been dropping (see Appendix C). Collecting
better data on current students’ needs and desires could inform which courses to offer
online during which terms so as to increase our online enrollment figures. Collecting better
data from academic departments regarding which courses would be suitable for online,
which terms best fit students’ schedules, and which faculty could teach online during those
terms, will help target courses that have the best opportunities to meet enrollment goals
and provide a high-quality and flexible educational experience for students.
Online or hybrid programs have a potential to increase our graduate or undergraduate
enrollments by enabling place-bound or time-constricted students to complete our
programs while at a distance. Economic factors are encouraging more working adults to
change careers or further their education for advancement. Over a decade ago, adults
wishing to receive an advanced degree would have had to attend a local institution,
commute, or uproot families and careers to return to school. Today, adults with careers
and/or families now have opportunities for enrolling in online and hybrid degree programs
without uprooting family or career. These non-traditional students have not been a market
that Bradley has targeted for the past ten years or more. However, Bradley is limiting its
enrollment potential by not offering the flexibility and convenience of online and hybrid
programs demanded by these students.
Enrollments in post-secondary degree-granting institutions are projected to increase 14%
between 2011 and 2022, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
(see Appendix H). Of that increase, the NCES projects 1.1 million students will be
traditional aged 18-24 year olds, while 1.7 million will be 25 or over. This ratio indicates
greater growth in the number of non-traditional students seeking degrees. Non-traditional
28
students are more likely to need more flexibility in their degree programs than traditional
students. Additionally, non-traditional students are savvy consumers who expect high
quality education at competitive prices.
Bradley’s graduate programs present an excellent opportunity for growing online
programming. The Graduate School prides itself on professional partnerships, real-world
knowledge, and experiential learning. Working professionals have professional
partnerships and real-world knowledge, very suited to an online educational experience
and applying their education to their daily work life. Industry trends have increased
demand for advanced degrees. Preliminary student market research indicates student
demand for accredited graduate programs with a strong reputation. Pearson Embanet is
an online program management company that has been exploring working with Bradley to
offer online degrees in Business and Nursing. It has shared that there are over 150 online
MBA programs, but only 61 fully online AACSB accredited MBA programs offered
nationally. In Nursing, there are 77 BSN-MSN programs (evenly split between clinical and
non-clinical) and 50 DNP programs offered online in the nation, according to Pearson
Embanet data.
Competition for online/hybrid students is increasing. It is imperative that academic
departments conduct a thorough analysis, either insourced or outsourced, of the demand
and competition for the degree, as well as program feasibility, readiness, and planning
before developing any programs. This Task Force has recommended the development of a
discernment process to aid academic departments in their analysis.
In order to see the potential benefits of pursuing online degree programs, it is necessary to
quantify the resource needs and revenues. The potential benefits of offering any online
program are dependent on student demand. Additional research is needed to measure
student demand for particular online programs.
29
Section 5 - Resource needs for recommendations (Charge 5)
To implement the recommendations being made by the Task Force (outlined in Section 3),
resources will need to be allocated. The resource needs section is divided into two areas:
campus-based technology and online/hybrid learning.
Campus-based Technology Recommendations:
1. Craft and disseminate a clear vision of the role of technology and online education for
the university.
2. Strengthen relationships and communication between and among technology units
and stakeholders.
Resource needs:
Resource needs are minimal in this area. They include the time of committee
members and the cost of dissemination.
3. Increase the number of instructional technology, instructional design, and media
production professionals who help faculty enhance teaching with technology.
Resource needs:
 5 instructional technologists salaries
 5 instructional designers salaries
 Media producer salary
 Office space for additional staff
 Travel and training
 Equipment and software needs -- (ie. HD video camera with editing station and
appropriate software suite - $8,000; Lecture Capture annual license - $1,500)
4. Maintain classroom technologies and bring all learning spaces to a desired level of
network speed and reliability.
Resource needs:
 Replacement expense depending on room configurations ($1,000 - $8,000 per
room). Custom configurations are considerably more. ITMS has initiated an
assessment of all mediated learning environments in order to develop a
recommendation to fund total room upgrades over a five-year period.
 IRT is currently involved in a network assessment review to develop an upgrade
plan based on a 10Gb backbone to all buildings. Resource needs will be presented
independently to the senior administration.
 If part of the student laptop initiative is University-provided software, the potential
resource needs include software hosted servers and support personnel.
 Training or personnel to implement responsive design in all current and future
University web-based materials.
30
Sum of Costs for Campus-based Technology Resources
Resource Needs
Instructional Technologist, benefits,
training
Media Producer, benefits, training
Media Producer equipment & software
Instructional Designer, benefits, training
Classroom upgrades (25 per year)
Other (emerging) technology
Subtotal
Cost per Year Qty.
60,000
75,000
10,000
75,000
200,000
10,000
430,000
4
5
Cost per Year 2
240,000
75,000
2,500
375,000
200,000
10,000
902,500
Table 1 – Resource needs for campus-based technology recommendations
Assumptions:
 Media Producer and Instructional Designer(s) would be shared between
online/hybrid learning and campus-based teaching. Online programs would pay a
portion of salary costs.
 The College of Communications and Fine Arts has two instructional technology
professionals and may not need additional staffing.
 Classroom upgrade costs vary considerably by room. Customized rooms may cost
$35,000-$50,000 to replace. Basic classrooms (with just a television or a projector)
may cost just $1000 to replace. The costs proposed will support the replacement of
25 classrooms per year of varying equipment requirements.
 Other technologies will be discovered that meet the teaching needs of faculty
members and they will have license costs unknown at this time.
Other Costs
Some of the resource needs for proposed recommendations have costs that are unknown to
the members of the Task Force. These costs include:
 Office space for new staff.
 University network upgrades (being addressed by the Associate Provost for IRT).
Additionally, some costs require further study to determine exact needs:
 Cloud-based software access for students.
 Online training modules for new software & technology.
 Web designer to implement "responsive design" on university and course websites.
31
Proposed Revenue
Revenue Source - Technology Fee of $5
Credit
per credit hour
Hours
Undergraduate Students
5000
Graduate Students
600
Total technology fees to be collected
$/Credit
Hr.
Subtotal
32
$5
$800,000
15
$5
$45,000
$845,000
Table 2 – Potential revenue source for campus-based technology recommendations
Online and Hybrid Learning
5. Recommendations for online courses and programs.
A. Lay foundation for growing online learning through review of policies, faculty incentives,
student and faculty support systems, quality assurance measures, and compliance with state,
national, and accrediting agencies.
Resource needs:
 Software developers’ time or resources to modify or replace Registrar’s system.
 Time to review policies, conduct and analyze surveys, resources to inform faculty
about the Quality Matters program and processes.
 Staff time to implement Quality Matters and conduct or oversee training.
 Resources to incentivize development and delivery of online and hybrid courses.
 Instructional designers, media producers, and instructional technologist to support
faculty in developing and delivering online and hybrid courses.
 Additional media resources for lecture capture software licenses and the necessary
hardware for capturing and storing the media, and synchronous meeting software
licenses. Expanding licenses to the entire campus will cost about $30,000 annually.
 Time to develop a student “online-readiness” self-assessment and processes to
deliver such.
 Potentially, funds to procure self-help tutorials, or in-person help, for students to
learn applicable new technologies.
 Resources for proctoring online testing (this may be a fee paid by the student).
B. Create a discernment process to help departments examine demand, development, and
evaluation of online courses and programs for their disciplines.
Resource needs:
 Time to develop discernment process.
 Resources for market research.
32
Following the discernment process, if online programs are to be developed, additional
expenses will be necessary. The following section outlines the expenses the Task Force
anticipates as being necessary.
Estimated Costs to Develop and Deliver an Online Master’s Program
For illustration purposes, we modeled a 33-credit hour master’s program using cost
estimates and based on several assumptions. We used a financial model from an online
degree program developed and offered by the University of British Columbia (Managing
Technology in Higher Education, p 162-181) as a comparison in developing estimates, then
developed our own model based on UBC calculations, our local knowledge and knowledge
from the literature – particularly the Sloan –C Quality Scorecard for Online Programs
(http://sloanconsortium.org/quality-scorecard) and models outlined in Bates & Sangra’s
Managing Technology in Higher Education.
Using available information and estimates, we outlined some anticipated costs, below, for
developing and delivering an online program.
Descriptions of anticipated costs:
Course design and development
 An instructional designer will train the faculty member to design an online course,
help the faculty member design the online courses, and help them revise the online
course.
 A media producer will train and support the faculty member in the use of lecture
capture and synchronous meeting software, help the faculty member produce
lecture recordings and develop media and graphics for use in the online courses.
 Faculty members receive a stipend to develop the course.
Technology
 Additional lecture capture licenses, synchronous meeting software licenses,
streaming media servers and storage space, Sakai storage space, and production
equipment will be needed.
 Additional technology support (Technology HelpDesk) will be needed and the
amount would vary based on the number of courses offered.
Course Design & Development Support
Develop
Deliver/
Maintain
Instructional designer, benefits, training (after courses are
developed, revisions are necessary, but instructional designer
would be available to support other courses or programs)
75,000
12,500
Media producer (video, graphics, web), benefits, training (after
courses are produced, revisions are necessary, but media
producer would be available to support other courses or
programs)
75,000
7,500
33
Media producer equipment & software
Technology
Sakai additional storage
Lecture capture licenses
Synchronous meeting software
Media server storage
Technology support (for additional HelpDesk staffing)(this varies
by number of students)
Other technology systems and incidentals
Totals
10,000
2,500
200
4,000
2,000
1,000
200
4,000
2,000
-
8,000
8,000
1,000
176,200
1,000
37,700
Other costs unknown to the Task Force:
Teaching/delivery
 Faculty members are paid to develop and teach the course.
 Course sections are capped at 20 students, after which additional sections are
offered.
 Graduate students are paid per course section to provide assistance to faculty and
tutoring to students.
Marketing/advertising
 The marketing and advertising cost is variable, based on competition and targeted
enrollment.
State compliance & accreditation
 A compliance officer will be needed initially to establish agreements with other
states from which we draw our students.
 Other states will charge fees for the privilege of educating their students.
Program administration
 A departmental online program administrator will be needed for oversight.
 A recruitment and retention officer will be needed to recruit students into the
program and retain them.
 A distance education unit/office may be needed to oversee online and hybrid
programs.
Additional Variables to Consider
State authorization fees:
States are presently considering laws for reciprocal agreements, and regional consortia are
making plans for a State Authorization Reciprocal Agreement (SARA). If enacted, SARA
would likely require fees of approximately $4000. However, if a reciprocal agreement is not
reached, authorization fees could total $60,000 (Straumsheim, 2013).
Full-time versus part-time faculty teaching courses:
34
The costs will vary depending on whether full-time or part-time faculty are utilized to teach
the courses.
Other Costs
Some of the resource needs being proposed in the recommendations of the Task Force
have costs that are unknown to the members of the Task Force. These costs include:
 Office space for new staff.
Additionally, some costs require further study to determine exact needs:
 Cloud-based software access for students.
 Online training modules for new software & technology.
 Web designer to implement "responsive design" on university websites and course
websites.
One cost most reasonably paid directly by the student would be proctoring fees for taking
online exams, at an average cost of $25 per exam per student.
35
Section 6 - Conclusion & Next Steps
It is the conclusion of this Task Force that there is an opportunity for Bradley to be
competitive in the arena of online degree programs and courses. These opportunities must,
however, be carefully evaluated for market demand and cost structure. Further, and most
importantly, these new programs and systems of delivery must be consistent with the
Bradley brand. Students enrolled in online experiences must have the level of interaction,
discussion, and participation that mirrors what our students currently experience in a
traditional format. In addition, our faculty must be fully supported as they strive to
replicate a very successful educational experience in a new environment. The final piece of
the puzzle is the technology itself. Effective implementation of these new programs will
require a strong commitment from University leadership in funding new hardware,
software, and support staff. Existing technology issues must first be remedied before
taking on a newer, bigger vision. Ultimately, the entire campus community must believe
that development in technology-supported education is a priority for the University and
will receive proper resources, public backing, and long-term commitment from the Board
of Trustees and Swords Hall.
Short-term Recommendations: Campus-based Technology
1. Craft and disseminate a clear vision of the role of technology and online education
for the university.
2. Strengthen relationships and communication between and among technology units
and stakeholders.
3. Hire one instructional technologist, who would report to ITMS, to support the
Liberal Arts, Education & Health Science and Business faculty in integrating
classroom technology into their teaching. Estimated Annual Cost = $60,000.
4. Hire one instructional designer, who would report to CTEL/ITAC, to support faculty
in designing and developing online and hybrid courses. Estimated Annual Cost =
$75,000.
5. Hire one media producer to support faculty in producing media for face-to-face,
hybrid and online courses. Estimated Annual Cost = $75,000.
6. Purchase production equipment for media production. Estimated first year cost =
$10,000.
7. Upgrade and expand lecture capture and cloud streaming technology for all faculty
members. Annual cost = $30,000.
8. Upgrade teaching technology in 25 classrooms each year, such that each classroom
is upgraded every 5 years. Estimated Annual Cost = $200,000.
9. Allocate funding for emerging technologies that support teaching needs. Estimated
Annual Cost = $10,000.
10. Upgrade Bradley network and wireless access.
11. Institute a student technology fee of $5 per credit hour. Estimated Annual Revenue
= $845,000.
Long-term Recommendations: Campus-based Technology
36

Hire additional instructional technologists and instructional designers to support
faculty in their integration of technology into their teaching.
Short-term Recommendations: Online Courses and Programs
Online programs have potential to increase Bradley’s reach in educating students and
increase revenue.
1. Develop a discernment process for interested departments to use in determining if
online programs are marketable and feasible.
2. Start online graduate program (for those that pass the discernment process).
Develop programs in-house to invest dollars into our own institutional resources
and maximize the return on our investment.
3. Hire instructional designer and media producer. These professionals will train
faculty to design and deliver online courses and assist in the production of the
courses. Cost = $160,000 per year for both. Keep them (after the first year) to
maintain courses and grow online courses for campus-based programs and/or grow
other online programs.
4. Pay faculty stipends for developing online courses. Cost $3,000 per course.
5. Share marketing person with Graduate School (quarter-time) to market online
programs and courses. Estimated Annual Cost = $20,000. Costs would increase
based on the target student admittance numbers.
6. Advertise online program. Estimated Annual Cost = varies by market demand and
enrollment targets.
7. Expand lecture capture and synchronous meeting software licenses, and expand
media server and Sakai storage to allow for interactive and engaging online
learning. Estimated Annual Cost = $6,000.
8. If offering online program(s), contract with a compliance professional to negotiate
state compliance agreements (if needed – this will depend on legislative decisions).
Cost = unknown
9. Hire a department-level program administrator to maintain quality, consistency,
and student satisfaction. Half-time for one program, full time for more than one
program. Estimated Annual Cost = $50,000-$100,000.
Long-term Recommendations: Online Programs
 Grow additional online programs, based on the needs and desires of academic
programs, and the results of them having gone through the discernment process.
37
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Supporting data for Charge 1 report
Bradley University
Sakai Usage Data
Instructional Technology Assistance Center
April 25, 2013
Sakai Statistics 2010-present
Updated 4/25/13
General usage data:
 20-25% of our total user base uses Sakai during the weekday (6000-7000 logins)
(3500-4000 unique users).
 1148 of 1840 total course offerings in Fall 2012 used Sakai.
 Number of online classes has grown from 0 in 2000 to 156 in 2012.
Published course sites by term
2013
2012
Fall
2011
Summer
Spring
2010
2009
0
500
1000
Spring
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1500
Summer
168
766
1000
1059
1073
Fall
44
219
657
950
1071
1148
38
In a Spring 2012 survey of 116 Bradley University instructors, 95% of them indicated
they are using Sakai, and over ¾ of them have more than four courses per year on Sakai. 31%
of respondents indicated they teach a fully online course.
So far in the Spring 2013 semester there are 1073 published course sites out of 1779
course sites. Since all courses are automatically added so Sakai as unpublished, this shows
about 60% of sites were actually set up by the professor. In Fall 2012 there were 1148 active
sites out of 1840, or about 62%. In Spring 2012 there were 1059 active sites out of 1828, or
about 58%. In Fall 2011 there were 1071 active sites out of 1871, or about 57%.
Instructors indicated their most used tools were Resources, Syllabus, E-Mail, Gradebook,
and Announcements, with more than ¾ of instructors using each of these. They were then
asked what makes a tool useful, and the most used tools were the ones that saved time and
enhanced communication with students. The lesser used tools required too much effort or
were not found to be relevant to their course.
Here are a few anonymous instructor quotations from the survey:
“I can keep my communications regarding course assignments, any changes, class
attendance.”
“Extremely useful, I have all class work posted here by start of semester, however, I may
add as necessary, again student immediate access, less paper copying etc...”
In a Fall 2012 survey of all students with over 1100 responses, over 80% of students
indicated they have 3 or more courses using Sakai that semester, while 60% of them visit Sakai
at least once per day. Of the tools being used by professors, it was rare to find a tool that
students did not find useful. That being said, the vast majority of student complaints pertained
to instructors not using tools enough. Of the qualitative results, students specifically enjoyed
tools which offered organization, reminders, and quick/convenient access to information.
Here are a few anonymous student quotations from the survey:
“I would really enjoy all my classes having Sakai so I could check my grades and get
information all the time.”
“When teachers don't use Sakai. That makes it the most difficult. I wish all teachers used
all the options on Sakai. (In response to: “What do you find most challenging?”)
“It provides easy access to learning resources, such as grades, syllabi, lecture notes, etc.“
“The easy way for faculty and students to communicate, all class information in one place.”
When looking at survey reports by department we find, as expected, the Communications &
Fine Arts college holds more face-to-face courses on average, and utilizes communication tools
such as Chat Room more. The college itself uses Sakai just as much, but the students seem to
visit it less. When looking at the Education & Health Sciences college, we find students really
enjoying having access to practice tests online.
When posting resources on Sakai, we find PowerPoint files consuming the largest
amount of space, about 116 GB. The next most popular file types are PDF and Word
documents. Videos take up the next most amount of space, followed by sound files and
pictures.
39
To browse the Internet in the 2012-2013 academic year, so far about 35% of the
activity has been from Google Chrome, which seems to be only rising since it came into
existence. Firefox has been dropping in activity, down to about 12%. Safari has seen a slight
increase with 23% and Internet Explorer has been steady around 22%. Mobile browsers
account for approximately 8% of the activity through Android, iPad, and iPhone.
40
APPENDIX B - Supporting data for Charge 1 report
Bradley University
Turnitin Usage Data
Instructional Technology Assistance Center
January 2010 – December 2013
Students
submitting
papers
5,581
Turnitin
Paper
Submissions
39,335
Originality
Reports
39,138
Matching
Matching
Matching
Matching
< 20
75-100%
50-74%
25-49%
0-24%
words
906
1,226
4,596
22,148
10,262
Grademarks
1,143
41
APPENDIX C - Supporting data for Charge 1 report
Bradley University
Online and Distance Learning Courses
2009-2013
CG inquired by Andy Kindler, Associate Registrar, as to the number of online and distance learning courses offered. The
following numbers are the result of this inquiry.
Sum
2009
Fall
2009
Spr
2010
Sum
2010
Fall
2010
Spr
2011
Sum
2011
Fall
2011
Spr
2012
Sum
2012
Fall
2012
Jan
2013
Spr
2013
Sum
2013
22
23
78
24
25
100
24
36
28
111
590
2,220
188
2,233
617
Total number of
online & distance
learning classes
68
20
17
81
Total number of
courses offered
569
1,687
1,685
586
11.95
1.18
1.00
13.82
1.06
1.09
13.47
1.12
1.17
16.95
1.08
19.15
1.25
18.00
486
296
364
511
387
371
515
311
395
562
271
253
380
581
2,106
5,801
5,801
2,019
709
5148
1849
Percentage of
online courses
Number of
students enrolled
in online courses
Total Students
2,072 2,118
5,813 5,497
579
2,043
2,137 2,137
5,640 5,342 1,904 5,451
42
APPENDIX D - Supporting data for Charge 1 report
Bradley University Classroom Technology - 2013
Data from Nial Johnson shows there are approximately 130 mediated classrooms, representing approximately 85 percent of all
classrooms at Bradley University. In addition, six media carts are available to transport to individual classrooms.
Building
Screen
OH
Proj.
Slide
Proj.
Sound
Control
24
12
2
18
1
12
41
18
2
34
14
4
2
5
3
7
2
7
2
11
2
7
2
Computer
Projector
26
19
23
Bradley
48+2
10
41
30
Burgess
5
1
5
CGCC
Constance
13
3
12
2
7
3
Baker
Hartmann
Heuser
Jobst
Library
Markin
Morgan
Olin
Peoria Next
Student Cntr
Sission
Smith Career
Swords
Westlake
Hayden-Clark
Visitor Cntr
Heitz
Quantity
5
5
28
15
8
10
23
2
13
2
1
1
22+6
7
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
21
4
4
7
20
2
5
1
1
Video
Laser
Disc
2
7
3
4
5
16
1
3
1
Doc
Cam
3
4
12
3
2
17
4
8
8
18
2
9
2
X
4
6
2
2
2
2
5
2
4
3
4
3
14
2
TV/Flatpanel
SB/Symp
2&2
4&0
14/3
0/1
2
2
Video
Cnf.
1&0
0/21
1
1&0
0
7
1&1
1&2
1&11
4&1
1&1
2
5
1
0/1
0/1
1&0
1
29
7
(H)
Mic (L)
1
1
2
5
0
1
1
1
12
18
7
18
0/1
0/9
13/0
6
1
1
0/1
1
1
1&0
43
APPENDIX E - Supporting data for Charge 3 recommendations
Cal State Online Education White Paper – January 2012
Cal State developed a comprehensive list of recommended campus policies and
components for preparing the institution for offering online courses and programs.
1. Clear definition of terminology related to course delivery requires policies to be explicit in
defining both online instruction and the forms of instruction. It is noted that there is no universal
agreement for these terms relative to online learning.
2. Curricular control speaks to the issues of curriculum and course approvals.
3. Class size is noted to impact course design and delivery and states the importance of
identifying class size limitations for online classes.
4. Cross-campus acceptance of courses and programs speaks to the importance of
ensuring that online and hybrid courses are subject to the same policies as traditional classes.
5. Intellectual property rights notes the clear delineation of rights for faculty members
developing courses and instructional materials.
6. Use of outside contractors to provide course materials asserts faculty control over the
development of curricula and course materials as a baseline for quality education.
7. Faculty training and instructional design support speaks to the need for faculty to have
the skills necessary for online course delivery.
8. Student training in the use of course technology identifies the need for adequate student
proficiency in the use of the technology supporting online educational programs.
9. Recognition of online instructional activities in performance evaluations encourages
the acknowledgement of these efforts in existing campus performance evaluation processes.
10. Tenure track and contingent faculty speaks to the recognition of tenure track faculty as
the primary custodians of curricula and programs, including online programs.
11. Faculty office hours and availability to students suggests that the methods and
frequency of office hours, virtual or in person, be clearly communicated to students.
12. Informed students recognize the importance of providing students with accurate
information about modes of instruction.
13. Instructional support asserts that students enrolled in courses should have adequate
levels of technology support.
14. Non-instructional support addresses the importance of student access to student support
services and suggests that policies provide information as to how this access will be provided.
15. Student evaluations of teaching notes that campuses should follow the Unit 3 Collective
Bargaining Agreement in this area.
16-19. Assessment of courses and programs, course rigor, academic integrity, and
accessibility cites the need for parity between online and traditional course offerings.
20. Student right to take a class in a traditional format identifies the need for informing
students about choices in format for required courses.
21. Hosting of class material speaks to the conditions (if any) under which hosting of
university materials in non-university sites will be allowed.
22. Syllabi should include the necessary information dealing with online course issues.
23. Accessibility - Campus policies on accessibility of instructional materials should apply
equally to hybrid and online courses. The policy should cite references to such policies.
SOURCE:
http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Reports/documents/Online_Education_White_Paper.pdf
44
APPENDIX F – Charge 2 report
National Trends for Using Teaching Technology and for Hybrid and Online Education
Bradley University Teaching Technology Task Force – March 2014
The Teaching Technology Task Force was charged with reviewing the national trends for
using teaching technology in the classroom, hybrid and online educational delivery
formats. The Task Force researched how other institutions of higher education have
integrated technology on their respective campuses and how they were utilizing
alternative delivery formats to deliver their educational programs.
Technology Integration into Teaching
Introduction
Universities have remained very homogenous since their inception in this country. However,
today technology stands to change the face of higher education. Online teaching and learning
in particular may serve as a disruptive innovation according to Christensen and Horn (2013) in a
New York Times OpEd. They stated, “Yet many bricks-and-mortar colleges are making the
same mistake as the once dominant tall (sailing) ships: they offer online courses but are not
changing the existing model. They are not saving students time and money, the essential steps
to disruption.” Joshua Kim, Director of Learning and Technology of Dartmouth College Master of
Health Care Delivery Science, said the higher education industry will soon experience the same
fate as the airline industry – an un-bundling and re-bundling of services to better meet the needs
of its clients with less cost and greater efficiency (J. Kim, personal communication, October 4,
2013). Christensen and Horn predicted that in the next 10 to 15 years the bottom 25% of each
tier of college classifications will disappear or merge.
A Pew Research Center 2012 study on the Future of Higher Education (Anderson & Rainie,
2012) surveyed 1000 higher education technology and administrative leaders and found that
60% believed there would be significant changes in higher education by 2020. Common
arguments by respondents were:
 Higher education will vigorously adopt new teaching approaches, propelled by
opportunity and efficiency as well as student and parent demands.
 Economic realities will drive technological innovation creating less uniformity in
higher education.
 Universities will adopt new pedagogical approaches while retaining the core of
traditional methods.
 Collaborative education with peer-to-peer learning will become a bigger reality and
will challenge the lecture format and focus on “learning how to learn.”
 Competency credentialing and certification are likely…yet institutional barriers may
prevent widespread degree customization.
This and other research point to significant changes in higher education in the coming years
due, in part, to the advances of technology.
This report is an overview of the state of technology in education today.
45
Students Today
According to the Study of Undergraduates and Information Technology (Dahlstrom, Walker, &
Dziuban, 2013), undergraduate students:
 Recognize the value of technology but still need guidance when it comes to better using
it for academics.
 Expect their instructors to train them to use the technology required for their courses.
 Prefer blended learning environments while beginning to experiment with Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs).
 Are ready to use their mobile devices more for academics, and they look to institutions
and instructors for opportunities and encouragement to do so.
 Value their privacy, and using technology to connect with them has its limits.
Classroom Technology
There are a tremendous number of products to fit the classroom technology needs of IHEs on
the market today. Important factors are: 1) classroom technology should remain consistent on a
foundational level, yet 2) customized to meet the differing teaching needs of the faculty and the
curriculum, 3) the technology is well maintained, and 4) faculty are well supported in using the
technology. There seems to be a consensus that the choice of the type of computer, projector,
and/or screen combination should be made based on the demands placed on the classroom by
the institution.
Additionally, students need to have computer access to be successful in their courses today.
Whether that access should be provided by IHE-maintained machines or student-maintained
machines is up for debate.
Network infrastructure is as important as technology.
Clickers
The use of audience responses systems (clickers) or the use of cell phones as response
devices for conducting live polling of all students in a classroom has exploded over the past
decade (Brady, Kaplan, & Martyn, 2013). The overarching need to actively engage students has
driven this explosion (Martyn, 2007). Clickers provide students with the engagement they
crave, and they provide instructors with immediate feedback on the students’ understanding of
course content. Clicker uses include stimulating student curiosity about a topic, aiding a class
discussion, and/or collecting anonymous opinion data just to name a few (Kaplan, 2011).
e-Texts
The adoption of electronic textbooks at IHE has been slow and varied (Baek & Monaghan,
2013; Watters, 2012). Barriers to implementation include negative instructor opinions of e-texts,
negative student opinions of e-texts, and the accessibility of the texts for students with limited or
no online access (Baek & Monaghan, 2013; Watters, 2012; FCC, 2013). The access issue has
been addressed in some cases by IHE distributing iPads, e-readers, and/or laptops to all
students (Watters, 2012). This approach is obviously cost intensive. Little consistent data
exists on why instructors are reluctant to adopt e-texts, but current trends suggest there is a
46
slow shift in favor of e-texts because they are often cheaper for students (Baek & Monaghan,
2013; FCC, 2013). Students are in favor of e-texts only if they are cheaper, user friendly, and
interactive (Baek & Monaghan, 2013).
One of the principal debates about e-texts is open vs. closed source content (Watters). Open
source is favored by many, but lacks the means necessary to be created in many cases
(Watters). The down side to closed source is instructors don’t get to dictate the exact content
of the book. Larger publishers have begun to address this trend by making their e-texts more
interactive (i.e. links to YouTube videos, online demos, electronic quizzes, and various other
online “homework” type applications and systems) (Watters, 2012; Baek, 2013).
Publishers and the government (specifically the FCC) have begun working with K-16 institutions,
including IHE bookstores, to be sure they are educating their students about the benefit of etexts (FCC, 2013).
Lecture Capture
The idea of capturing a lecture on video for later playback online first caught on shortly after the
year 2000 (Zhu, 2010). Since this time online course offerings around the globe have exploded
exponentially. Institutions and companies have developed elaborate systems that will capture
any combination of images from an instructor’s computer, the chalkboard, the instructor, and
various audio and video sources (Pursel, 2012; Riismandel, 2013; & Zhu, 2010). The
implementation of these systems has grown as students have demanded access to lecture
material outside of a traditional lecture timeslots (Riismandel, 2013). The systems are used to
supplement or replace traditional lecture in purely online, hybrid, and face-to-face course
offerings (Pursel, 2012; Zhu, 2010). The biggest obstacle to their implementation is funding.
Once funds are secured to implement systems, the use of systems by faculty only increases if
faculty are properly trained and the systems are adequately supported and maintained (Pursel,
2012; Zhu, 2010).
Provided captured segments can be played at the viewer’s leisure, are short, and are
entertaining, they are an effective way to deliver course content (Pursel, 2012; Zhu, 2010).
Students love the opportunity to review content anytime at any speed and that they receive
more instructor interaction in the class because they are not passive recipients of lectures
(Pursel, 2012; Zhu, 2010). Implementations range from equipment that can be checked out of a
teaching and learning office, to select rooms on campus, to initiatives to implement the
technology in all campus classrooms (Riismandel, 2013).
Synchronous Technologies
Synchronous technologies enable the classroom without walls. Instructors and students can be
located anywhere and participate in real-time collaboration and discussion (Ashley, 2003).
Besides being used in the classroom environment, these technologies are used in recruiting,
advising, and office hours.
Basic web-based software such as Skype or Google Hangouts comes with little or no cost to the
faculty and no cost to the student. Products like these allow for multiple people to participate
with basic features of audio and video, and may also have features of desktop sharing and
phone conferencing services. Cost control appears to be a vital point in the election and use of
video conferencing software packages (University of Washington, 2014a).
47
An example of a best practice occurs at the University of Washington (University of Washington,
2014b). They are using software like Adobe Connect or Tegrity as part of a university-wide plan
to prepare for a disruption in on-campus activities when classes can’t meet due developments
such as extended severe weather. The plan includes putting course materials online,
establishing channels of communication between instructor and student, and preparing in
advance a way to conduct classes at a distance.
A second example of a best practice is in place at (Clemson University, 2014). This institution
has made Adobe Connect 8 available to all faculty and staff. Faculty can use Connect to teach
classes and interact with students. Currently students can use AnyMeeting to communicate
with 3 to 200 participants.
Although not a classroom activity, Central Washington University uses Skype to communicate
with potential students. They post hours of operation and their Skype address on their web site
(Central Washington University, 2014).
Virtual Reality
Virtual reality technologies, such as SecondLife, offer the ability for people to interact, share
resources, and participate in live conversations through avatars in 3D virtual environments, or
explore virtual environments asynchronously (Educause Learning Initiative, 2006).
Learning Management Systems
A Learning Management System (LMS) sometimes called a Course Management System
(CMS) is a web-based platform that provides a vehicle for faculty members to post course
information, content, resources, grades, assignments, quizzes, and more (Educause Library,
2014). It may be integrated with other campus systems like course registration, the registrar’s
grade recording system, campus calendars, an institutional portal, campus email system,
student end-of-term evaluations, learning analytic systems and performance dashboards. It
may also be integrated with commercial learning resource systems like textbook publishers’
electronic learning content, plagiarism detection systems, electronic grading tools, audience
response systems, and discipline-specific software packages like mathematical software. The
functionalities of the LMS continue to expand into existing and new facets of 21st-century
teaching and learning.
Learning management software tools may be based on open source, free and open to their
users, e.g. Sakai, or commercial applications, purchased from and supported by a vendor, e.g.
Blackboard. LMSs are designed for universities, corporations, professional development
providers, and more. Features vary by vendor and by the design of the LMS. There are dozens
of possible features that can be used when choosing and evaluating an LMS. Accessibility for
both faculty and students may be the most important feature in an LMS.
Learning Analytics
Learning analytics were predicted by the 2013 New Horizon Report to take hold in the next two
to three years. Purdue University is using data-mining and analysis tools called Course Signals
to predict how well students are likely to do in particular classes. The system detects early
warning signals for those who are struggling, enabling an intervention before problems reach a
48
critical point. According to data released by Purdue in October 2013, six-year graduation rates
are up 21.48% since the project’s start, and grades for students who used Signals in two or
more classes are up significantly (Dormehl, 2013).
Other learning analytics systems that use limited data sources on which to base predictions
have been criticized as being overly simplistic.
Analytics can also be used to evaluate the impact of investments in instructional technology.
The University of Maryland-Baltimore County conducted research on using analytics to assess
its LMS and concluded in an April 2013 publication that “instructional technologies receiving
institutional support should be formally assessed [beginning with the] LMS because it is the
most common instructional technology in higher education” (Fritz, 2013).
Machine Grading
Machine grading or automated grading systems can be used to score and provide feedback on
student essays (Elliot, 2003). These systems such as eRater, by Educational Testing Service,
and Intelligent Essay Assessor, by Pearson, are marketed as means to save considerable
faculty time grading and provide quick feedback to students. In 2013, EdX released a new
product, Discern (http://code.edx.org/discern), that uses machine learning to allow faculty
members to train the software to grade essays as they would grade essays. Opponents contend
that these systems do not replace the quality of feedback a faculty member can provide
(Markoff, 2013).
Web 2.0
Best practices in the area of Web 2.0 are as diverse as Web 2.0 tools, but almost all
demonstrate some or all of the following results: increased student engagement, active
learning, improved relationship between students and instructors, and higher grades. Social
networks and all Web 2.0 tools allow students to use the tools, apps, and games they enjoy
using in their personal lives for an academic purpose. In general, the use of Web 2.0 in the
classroom simply moves “normal” classroom practices to a new environment. Rather than
having students meet as groups to discuss a class project, they are encouraged to create a
group hashtag and work collaboratively to establish project parameters before meeting in
person. Questions once handled by email—what chapters are on the test, do we have a
speaker in class today—are now handled via Facebook Groups. Students submit work for
grading via YouTube, Behance, Slideshare or Prezi (Junco, Elavsky, & Heiberger, 2012;
Greenhow & Gleason, 2012).
Mobile Learning
Mobile (smartphone and tablet) learning has the ability to take learning to “where the students
are” (Picciano, 2011). iPhones are used in clinical nursing classes, with immediate access to
prescription drug databases. Sydneyeve Matrix, an associate professor of Queens University,
developed a mobile app called Class Caddy to accompany her traditional Media and Culture
class. The app includes videos introducing each lesson, lecture slides, course calendar, social
media connections and feeds, and an email link to the professor. The 2013 New Horizon
Report predicted Tablet computing being adopted in higher education in a year or less.
Mobile learning, particularly on smartphones, has many potential future uses including:
49
1.
Replacing student ID cards for building access, vending, meal plan, retail,
laundry, etc. (Villanova University, University of San Francisco).
2.
E-advising.
3.
Increased “gamification” or gaming-based online learning in the classroom
environment. Gamification is the “infusion of game design techniques, game mechanics,
and/or game style into anything” (Game Design, 2014).
4.
Use of QR codes in mobile e-learning applications.
Mobile trends include: Location-based integration, online class management, domination of ebooks, cloud computing, BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), increased tablet use, increase in
social media in education, “snack learning” (learning in small bits at a time), and mobile learning
in workplace training (Syberworks, n.d.).
Below are some examples of how IHEs have integrated mobile learning platforms into their
campuses:
1.
Abilene Christian University has integrated mobile technologies into all aspects of
campus life. Campus leaders attribute a shared vision by faculty, technologists,
administrators, and students across the university; comprehensive focus on making
mobile technology a priority; and a desire to be recognized as national innovator in this
area as primary factors in making mobile learning prolific. (Abilene Christian University,
2014).
2.
The University of California Berkeley has created a mobile app that includes
downloadable photos and video content allowing potential students to get to know the
campus layout and history.
3.
Boise State University has a strategic goal of “creating a signature high-quality
educational experience for all students.” To achieve that goal they are investing in
faculty development, innovative pedagogies and an engaging environment for learning.
Incremental implementation with incentives, including free iPads or mobile devices for
faculty, $55K budget for project planning and development (including summer stipends,
faculty course reductions and other project associated costs) (Boise State University,
2014).
Emerging Technologies
Students at the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering can watch all of
their lectures on their smartphones. Not only is it convenient, but also flexible for students.
Viterbi was ranked as the top online engineering program in the country by US News & World
Report and USC was ranked one of the top 10 graduate engineering programs (Fuhrman,
2013). The course management system, course tools and materials are all mobile compatible.
Face-to-face classes can be held synchronously with online students participating live using
WebEx and phone conferencing. USC Computer Science Department Chair Gaurav Sukhatme
called the mobile access to all the information transformational – “geography doesn’t impose
constraints on education” (Fuhrman, 2013).
Other technologies predicted for adoption by the New Horizon Report were games and
gamification in two to three years. An example of gamification would be students earning points
to unlock badges and advance to new learning modules (Game Design, 2014).
Wearable technology like Google Glass enables students to interact with the technology to learn
more about their environment. The technology can provide students with contextual data about
50
their environment or allow students to input data from the environment for conducting research
or solving equations.
Gestural computing (using movement to control a computer, such as using a Wii remote) is also
being explored in higher education for potential benefits.
3D printing is being used to create 3D models, test art castings, and prototypes of mechanical
designs (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014).
Research demonstrates that for any technology, the faculty should be trained on its use and the
system should be supported and maintained continuously (Pursel & Fang, 2012; Zhu, 2010).
Hybrid or Blended Learning
Hybrid, or blended, learning spans a continuum from strictly face-to-face teaching to completely
online teaching. In the most liberal sense, any learning that combines any face-to-face
encounters and any online component may be considered blended learning. Blended learning
in the past few years has emerged to become recognized as a new domain for learning.
Blending “with a purpose” can incorporate the best of face-to-face learning, while offering
greater learning access and flexibility offered by technology. The University of Central Florida
has been researching blended learning for several years and has found that “blended courses-those that combine face-to-face instruction with online learning and reduced classroom contact
hours--have the potential to increase student learning while lowering attrition rates compared to
equivalent, fully online courses” (Blended Learning, 2004).
Stricter definitions of blended learning have emerged. Anthony Picciano defined hybrid or
blended learning as:
1. Courses that integrate online with traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned,
pedagogically valuable manner; and
2. Where a portion (institutionally defined) of face-to-face time is replaced by online activity
(Picciano, 2011).
Some institutions offering degree programs that are primarily online have found that holding
limited face-to-face meetings can enhance learning, increase socialization, increase motivation
and engagement, and offer greater support to students. Some programs are cohort-based and
may require one or more face-to-face meetings on campus. Michigan State University has a
hybrid doctoral program which begins with two intensive weeks on campus in the summer, with
classes throughout the rest of the year being online. An executive MBA program in Florida has
a three-day, face-to-face orientation. At the orientation, program participants receive iPads
loaded with all the apps and materials needed for the 15-month program. Before they travel
home, to begin their online program, they are introduced to the academic program, taught the
technology they will be using, and participate in team-building exercises with their cohorts.
Because blended learning spans a continuum between face-to-face and online learning,
technologies and strategies are shared between the face-to-face and the online domains.
Those strategies and technologies are discussed in the previous and following sections of this
report, and therefore will not be covered in this section on blended learning.
51
Online Learning
Online courses and degree programs give place-bound or time-restricted students open new
opportunities to continue their education versus traditional teaching modes. Over the past
decade this has lead to greater numbers of institutions offering online courses and programs to
serve this student market.
Growth of Online
A 2013 Babson study sponsored by the Sloan Consortium (a professional organization
dedicated to researching and promoting quality online learning) indicated that a growing
percentage of Chief Academic Officers (CAO) believe online learning is critical to the long-term
strategy of their institution (Changing Course Infographic, 2013). Even as total enrollment has
been declining, the online enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment has been growing, and
in 2011 was 32%, as reported by Sloan.
Barriers to Online
In the same study, faculty acceptance of online education has remained about 25% for the past
10 years. This is seen by CAO’s as a barrier to widespread adoption. There are other barriers
according to CAO’s, primarily, retention rates of online courses, discipline on the part of
students (89% believe this is a barrier), and acceptance by potential employers (40% believe
this is a barrier) (Changing Course, 2013, p. 10).
Effectiveness of Online Compared to Face-to-face
A 2011 Babson study sponsored by Sloan-C indicated a majority of CAO’s (51%) believed
online learning outcomes were the same as face-to-face and 16.5% believed outcomes were
better than face-to-face. However, 32.4% of CAO’s believed learning outcomes in online
education were not as good as face-to-face. Two years later, the percentage of academic
leaders believing that online learning outcomes were as good as or better than face-to-face
increased nearly ten percent to 77% (Changing Course, 2013).
Student satisfaction levels are virtually the same between online and face-to-face education,
with some aspects of learning, such as student-to-student and student-to-faculty interactions
favoring face-to-face, and scheduling flexibility and ability to work at their own pace favoring
online (Going the Distance, 2012).
Emerging Innovations
Online learning has been in place at institutions across the country since the 1990s.
Improvements in Internet speeds and capacity, as well as new tools for creating and sharing
content, have ushered in innovative methods for teaching and learning online. Online learning
has seen wider adoption as tools and network speeds have made developing and using online
52
teaching and learning easier and more accessible. The following are some innovations or new
models springing from the wider adoption and ease-of-use of online learning:
In traditional higher education, students take a prescribed sequence of college courses, and - if
they earn passing grades - these grades are collected into a college transcript, and matriculate
to a college degree. For centuries, this has been the standard means for verifying student
competencies. Now new ways to vet learner competencies called Alternative Credentials are
being explored (Fain, 2012). These alternative credentials may include things such as
certificates for courses completed and digital badges that can be shared as proof of a learned
competency (Educause, 2013). Certificates have grown to become the second most common
postsecondary award in the United States (over 1 million are awarded each year) (Carnevale,
Rose, & Hanson, 2012). Additionally, programs outside higher education—as well as some
pioneering projects in the postsecondary sphere—are adopting digital credentials and badgeempowered learning. Some believe these alternative credentials may lessen the demand for
college degrees if would-be college students earn certificates or badges in particular knowledge
or skill areas and employers accept these alternative credentials as validation of competency
(Graves, 2013).
Competency-based learning “allows students to advance based on their ability to master a skill
or competency at their own pace regardless of environment. This method is tailored to meet
different learning abilities and can lead to more efficient student outcomes” (Educause Library,
2014). This model of learning de-emphasizes “seat-time” but looks at student mastery of
content. “Depending on the strategy pursued, competency-based systems also create multiple
pathways to graduation, make better use of technology, support new staffing patterns that utilize
teacher skills and interests differently, take advantage of learning opportunities outside of school
hours and walls, and help identify opportunities to target interventions to meet the specific
learning needs of students. Each of these presents an opportunity to achieve greater efficiency
and increase productivity” (US Department of Education, 2014).
MOOCs may be one way of obtaining alternative credentials. “A massive open online course
(MOOC) is a model for delivering learning content online to any person who wants to take a
course, with no limit on attendance.” (Educause Learning Initiative, 2013). The MOOC market,
while receiving a lot of press and experimentation in 2013, has struggled to find a viable
business plan. However, some models are starting to emerge. Coursera has developed a
system called Signature Track which allows students of select MOOCs to obtain a certificate of
completion verified by an institution that can be shared electronically through the Coursera
website (https://www.coursera.org/signature/). As of January 2014, 10 US institutions of higher
education (and many other global institutions) were participating as endorsing universities.
Costs for certified courses range from $30-$100.
However, the “father of the MOOC” Sebastian Thrun called the MOOC a “lousy product” to a
Fast Company reporter (Chafkin, 2013), pointing out the participants’ 10% completion rate, and
not all of those passing.
According to studies by Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, MOOCs have been popular with people
who already have degrees who are seeking to brush up on their knowledge or learn new skills.
In traditional higher education, MOOC’s have been used to supplement “flipped” classes – in
which content is delivered outside of class and active learning or assessments are conducted
during class time.
53
Some institutions are electing to offer their core curriculum online at reduced rates, such as the
state university system at University of Georgia (https://ecore.usg.edu/2012_factbook/). As core
curriculum course offerings become increasingly available online at low rates, institutions
offering core courses may find it difficult to compete with lower cost options at state or
community colleges.
On the other end of the tuition dollar spectrum, 2U – an online program management company recruited a consortium of prestigious institutions to offer the “Semester Online.” In the
“Semester Online” program, courses developed and taught online by one institution are
available for any student in the consortium, or an affiliate institution, to take for credit at their
institution. Institutions in the consortium include Northwestern, Notre Dame, Washington
University in St. Louis. Tuition fees are charged at the hosting institution’s rate.
Self-paced online instruction has been adopted as a means for students to gain general
education credits at Ivy Tech in disciplines of introductory courses in which it doesn’t have
instructors to teach. Accounting, English, psychology, to name a few, are being offered as selfpaced courses developed by Pearson and sold for $299 per student, per course – which
includes access to the online text and 10 hours of online tutoring support. Once the student
progressively unlocks each test, demonstrating their competency on practice tests, they have
completed the course. Ivy Tech also requires the student pass a College Level Examination
Program (CLEP) test before they receive credit for the course.
According to research studies (Bates & Sangra, 2011), typical online students are older, work
many hours a week, and are often supporting families. These factors put them at greater risk of
dropping out of their degree program. The University of Georgia is using retention specialists
to intervene (by phone, email or face-to-face meeting) with students who aren’t participating,
don’t turn in an assignment, or have a low grade
(http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/ESS_ECore_1.pdf).
Dual enrollment for high school and college credit, as well as degree completion for adult
learners and community college graduates, is available online at University of Georgia
(https://ecore.usg.edu/2012_factbook/2012%20Fact%20Book_page20.pdf).
Carousel entry points or start dates are also being offered by institutions in which students may
start a program at multiple points in the academic calendar.
Online learning is being used for pre-requisite modules to prepare students at the prestigious
Harvard Business School for their first classes. Online learning may also be used for remedial
education.
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance is impacted by the readiness of several factors – instructor, student, course,
and program.
Faculty technology training was indicated as a very important aspect of successful teaching with
technology, as stated earlier in this report. In online learning, faculty technology training is even
more critical to the success of a course or program. Bates and Sangra (2011) indicated that, in
most cases, technology training consists of workshops offered on an occasional or ad hoc
54
basis. They indicate that this leads to the majority of instructors having little or no training.
According to the 2011 Babson report, about 85% of training provided for faculty teaching online
at institutions of 3000-7499 students is internal training, and about 15% offer a certification
program (Babson, 2011). Hartman and Truman-Davis wrote, “Many faculty development
programs use workshops, guest speakers, or walk-in consultation. These offerings are relevant
and useful, but often do not lead to the cultural change required to achieve a transformative
integration of technology into teaching and learning” (2001).
Bates and Sangra (2011) contend “formal training is essential for all instructors. It is not just a
question of learning how to use a learning management system or lecture capture system. The
use of technology needs to be combined with an understanding of how students learn, how
skills and competencies are developed, how knowledge is represented through different media
and then processed, and how learners use different senses for learning. It means examining
different approaches to learning, such as the construction of knowledge compared with the
transmissive model of teaching, and how technology best works with either approach. Above
all, it means linking the use of technology to the specific requirements of a particular knowledge
domain or subject area” (p. 195).
Students must also be adequately prepared in order for online learning to be successful.
Students should be informed of online learning expectations and should be prepared in advance
through an orientation or online module prior to the start of an online course.
Guidelines for quality courses and programs have been vetted by professional organizations to
help ensure success of individual courses and programs. The most prevalent guidelines are
described in the next few sections of this report.
Course Design
How the course is structured, how learning objectives are designed and mapped to
assessments, content, learning activities and student interactions – should be based on proven
instructional design principles.
Instruments like the Quality Matters Rubric (www.qualitymatters.org), Chico State’s Rubric
(www.csuchico.edu/roi/), and the Quality Online Course Initiative
(www.ion.uillinois.edu/initiatives/qoci/) can provide a structure on which to design online
courses. Seton Hall has developed templates/ worksheets that instructors complete to populate
content into its course sites as a way to save time in course development and increase
consistency and quality. Instructors also benefit from assistance in selecting and utilizing the
appropriate technology and producing the media content.
Program/Institution Level Quality Assurance Guidelines
Guidelines for measuring quality at the program and institution level have been developed,
including the Sloan Quality Framework and Five Pillars (Moore, 2005), the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education’s guidelines for the evaluation of online learning (2002), the
Sloan-C’s Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs (2013), and the
Canadian Recommended e-learning Guidelines (Barker, 2002).
55
The Sloan Five Pillars consist of faculty satisfaction, student satisfaction, learning effectiveness,
scalability, and accessibility (Sloan-Consortium, n.d.).
The Sloan Quality Scorecard for Administration of Online Programs is an instrument for
measuring the quality of online programs. It consists of categories that allow institutions to selfevaluate (or be externally evaluated) on the evidence of the following core elements:
1. Institutional support (governance, policy on intellectual property, shared vision of the
value of online program).
2. Technology support (technology plan; electronic security measures - including
encryption, secure exams, and FERPA; reliable technology delivery systems;
centralized support for online infrastructure; faculty, staff, administrator, and student
support in the use of new technologies).
3. Course development and instructional design (quality standards for course design;
learning materials, activities, and assessments align to help students meet learning
objectives at course and program levels; technology is used for active studentcentered learning; effective pedagogy is used).
4. Course structure (all learning materials and resources - including library resources,
textbooks, and student support services are available online).
5. Teaching and learning (student-student and faculty-student interaction is prominent,
feedback to students is constructive and timely, students are taught to use online
resources for their learning, instructors use strategies to create a presence online).
6. Students are given opportunities to create or engage in online communities with other
students.
7. Faculty members receive technical and instructional support and training for
developing and delivering online courses, abiding by copyright laws as well as ethical
and quality standards.
8. Students receive support prior to starting a program, advising them as to the learning
expectations of the online program, requirements, tuition and fees, books and
supplies, technical and proctoring requirements, and student support services; and
during the program they receive technical support and skills training, academic and
career counseling, financial assistance, easy access to course requirements and
materials, ADA compliance, engagement with faculty, and tutoring resources.
9. Program evaluation and assessment measures are in place such as collection of data,
a set of standards have been devised, course and program learning outcomes and
their alignment are reviewed routinely, student support services are assessed, course
and program recruitment and retention is assessed, accessibility is reviewed according
to standards, course evaluations are examined, and faculty performance is assessed.
The Sloan Scorecard is an instrument available for the administrators of newly formed or
established online programs at the website,
sloanconsortium.org/quality_scoreboard_online_program.
Online Program Ranking Criteria
US News and World Report (2014) ranked online bachelors degree programs based on student
engagement, faculty credentials and training, student services and technology, and peer
reputation. For masters degree programs, admissions selectivity was also measured. Results
and methodologies are published on the US News website,
http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education.
56
Models of Online Course Development and Delivery
Bates and Sangra (2011) examined the various institutional cultures in which online courses are
developed and determined “quality in teaching with technology requires expertise not just in
content, but also in course or program planning, instructional design, media production, online
moderating, student support, and course or program evaluation and maintenance” (p. 139). The
processes by which online courses are developed vary by institution. The authors identified the
following online course development classifications:
1. “Lone Rangers” - instructors work on their own or with the help of a small grant that may
fund a graduate student. Advantages: gives instructor complete autonomy, which is
essential for getting innovation started. Disadvantages: it requires a great deal of effort
and time on the part of the instructor, it is time consuming to develop expertise with the
technologies, and quality may suffer.
2. “Boutique” Course Development – an instructor approaches an instructional support unit
(instructional designer or technology support person) one-on-one for professional
assistance. This model works well on a small scale or on small development needs (i.e. an
instructor needs help converting a PowerPoint presentation for delivery over the web).
However, it is unsustainable as demand increases.
3. Collegial Materials Development - several academics work together to develop online or
multimedia educational materials, and may have a graduate assistant or a web
programmer or instructional designer to help. However, it is likely that at some point there
is a need for more formalized management of the process, a form of evaluation, and the
need for professional design and graphics (p.140).
4. Project Management - a team of individuals each contribute different skills, and the process
is managed by a team leader/project manager. Advantages are quality control and cost
control. Disadvantages are decreased faculty autonomy and control over the course and
the additional cost of hiring instructional designers, course or web developers.
5. Open Content - the instructor pulls open content for use in the online course or designs the
course in such a way that students seek and integrate open content into the course (Bates
& Sangra, 2011).
The model used by an institution varied by financial and staffing resources available.
Business and Costing Models for Online Courses and Programs
The 2013 Survey of Online Learning Report data indicated the number of students taking online
courses continues to rise. In 2013 the number of students taking an online course rose 6.1%,
representing over 400,000 students (Babson, 2014). This would indicate that there is still room
in the online learning market for more online courses and programs. The following examples
point to varying approaches other institutions have taken to capture some of the online student
market.
The Georgia online core curriculum program, known as eCore, is a self-sustaining model for
offering its core curriculum, or general education, online for all institutions in the Georgia state
system. According to the financial information disclosed in the online “factbook,” courses may
be developed by faculty at one institution, hosted by another institution, and students from any
of the state institutions or eight affiliate institutions may take the courses for credit toward their
57
general education requirement (University System of Georgia, 2012). State school students pay
$189 per credit hour (affiliate institution students may pay more or less), and eCore splits the
revenue three ways – 40% to the administering institution, 20% to the student’s home institution,
and 40% to the faculty member’s home institution. Faculty members were paid $3000-3600 to
develop or revise each course, and they worked with a faculty mentor (experienced in online
course design) who also received compensation, though that compensation was not disclosed
in the factbook. In 2012, the eCore program generated over $3.5 million in tuition dollars. The
program tracked tuition generated by each course and it ranged from just under $10,000 for a
technology in education course to nearly $350,000 for a world history course.
The University of British Columbia developed a sustainable model for implementing an online
degree program. The model, including planning, program administration and overheads,
development, maintenance, and delivery, can be found in "Managing Technology in Higher
Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning," (Bates & Sangra, 2011). The
degree is a fully online master in education technology. The institution projected costs of
$317,000 in planning, $880,000 in program administration and overheads, $370,000 in
development, $267,000 in maintenance, and $1,019,000 in delivery over the first seven years.
It secured a loan to cover these costs and was able to pay off the loan after six years and
started generating a profit in the seventh year. The UBC paid strict attention to estimating
faculty and learning technology staff time; developing a good course design system that
maximizes quality and reduces time spent by faculty and staff; calculating revenues, costs and
necessary enrollments; and achieving enrollment targets.
Some institutions (Butler, Gonzaga, Purdue, Northeastern, Pepperdine, Vanderbilt, MaryvilleOhio, Wake Forest, and University of Southern California to name a few) have chosen to
partner with online program management companies as a means to launch online programs.
These companies may provide marketing/lead generation, enrollment management, student
services, online course development and delivery, as well as capital investment in exchange for
a majority percentage of tuition dollars (Eduventures, 2014). The institutions choosing this type
of partnership often indicate that the partnership allowed them to quickly initiate and build an
online program. Companies like Deltak, Embanet (subsidiary of Pearson), 2U, Blackboard, and
Academic Partnerships do extensive market analysis prior to contracting with institutions to
ensure the program has the potential to generate high enrollment numbers. The company may
invest up to $10 million in a program and commit to a 7-10 year contract with the institution to
ensure that in the long run, they will profit from the partnership (Embanet, 2014).
Several institutions partnering with online program management companies, such as Maryville
and Northeaster, have experienced enrollment numbers that far exceeded their expectations.
However, one institution which opted not to partner offered the following criticisms: vendors
would accrue a significant portion of revenues; the quality of the vendor-provided course was
unclear; course instructors would not be directly managed by the institutional faculty; and, that
the company would introduce redundant processes to the institution (Bowling Green State
University, n.d.).
Traditionally, institutions measure their costs on a per student basis. As different delivery
modes are considered, there is a need for new cost models with more granular measurements
of revenues and expenses. Bates and Sangra (2011) pointed to a need for activity-based
accounting in higher education to fully understand direct costs and revenues of a program to
conclude if the program is generating or potentially can generate profits. The Delta Cost Project
at American Institutes for Research also recommended tracking spending on granular levels –
such as by individual disciplines, level of instruction, and enrollment status. “If higher education
58
is to be more cost-effective and efficient, the unit of analysis needs to shift from cost per student
to cost per degree. To know what types of instructional delivery are most cost-effective, we
should be looking at the trade-offs between different types of investments and at the translation
of credits to degrees. For some types of instruction, including distance learning, spending per
student may go up, but if better retention and graduation rates result, cost per outcome will be
lower. And some of the biggest savings may well be to students and families, in the form of
shorter time to degree and better course scheduling and sequencing” (Kirshstein & Wellman,
2012).
Another example points to the significant benefits of using granular measurements of revenues
and expenses to understand direct costs for existing and new program models of delivery.
Brenau University has been able to double its annual income through tallying all revenues and
expenses of each college. "At its core, Brenau is a women’s college with a liberal-arts emphasis,
an endangered species these days. The university’s weekend, online, and professional
programs in business, occupational therapy, and other fields help sustain the women’s college.
‘I have to know how many people I need to educate in nursing to pay for those graduates in
English,’ Mr. Schrader says. ‘If I don’t know that, we’re subject to the whims of fate’” (Carlson,
2014).
Instructional, Production & Technical Support People & Services
Organization of Institutional Technology Support Units and Services
There is no common way for universities to organize their technology support units and people.
Reports on surveys over the years have emphasized the many and varied titles that are used
for units that support technology and teaching on campuses. This variation in titles also
corresponded to variations where the units were housed in the university structure. Technology
support units generally have one of three professional identities: Information Technology,
Instructional Design, and Faculty Development. Each of these professional identities
corresponds to different focuses on technology but there is some overlap.
John Nworie has written extensively in the area of educational technology with several articles
on the leadership and organization of educational technology units. In Academic Technology in
Higher Education, Nworie lists the functions of various technology support units that an
educational institution could have (2006).
Below is Nworie’s classification of educational technology units and the services they provide:
•
Instructional Development
• Course development/instructional problem-solving
• Application of instructional design methodology in course development
• Enhancing faculty teaching skills
• Training faculty to use technology
• Development of virtual learning spaces/environments
• Development of blended learning
• Consultation services
• May support distance learning in:
• Course development/instructional problem solving for DL courses
59
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Development of digital video & multimedia productions
• Online course development
• Learning object creation, storage, retrieval in web sites
Faculty Consultation & Professional Development
• Produce faculty self-paced development (web sites, newsletters, etc.)
• Technology skill assessment
• Technology consultations
• Workshops/seminars
• Faculty technology fellowships
• Classroom observations
• Awards programs for "best practices"
• Consultation services
Learning Space Design & Support
• Retrofit technology classrooms/classroom equipment installations
• Maintain centralized equipment pool
• Equipment maintenance & repair
• Classroom design consultation
• Support for handheld devices, student responses systems and assistive
technologies
• Support for academic computing functions
Knowledge Management/Learning Objects Support
• Indexing and distribution of learning objects
• Electronic portfolio and management
• Server management (that supports academics)
• Maintaining a digital asset management systems for learning objects
• Oversee efforts in the development, storage, and identification of learning
resources
• Creating awareness of global instructional repositories (e.g. CLOE, MERLOT)
• Cataloging resources in an easy to sort and access web-based knowledge
management system
• Seamless integration with instructional development
Research & Development
• Identification of emerging technologies
• Product testing and evaluation
• Implementation
Assessment of Learning Outcomes
• Assess to determine student learning outcomes
• Assess student performance across disciplines
• Assess impact of technology us in instruction
• Assist with AQIP (Academic Quality Improvement Plan)
• Evaluate academic technology support program activities
• Support academic units in developing assessment instruments (e.g. e-portfolios)
Multimedia Development & Production
• Video & audio production
• Graphics production
• Photographic services
• Multimedia production
• Self-service media production facility
• Videoconferencing
• Course management systems
• Digitization of materials for streaming
60
•
Distance Learning Support
• Support instructional development
• Support faculty development
• Support in-course and program development
• Support development of instructional materials
• Support development and delivery of streaming media
Nworie (2006) advocates for an integrated approach with all these functions in one unit.
However, if an integrated unit is not possible, then he makes the following recommendations to
consider when organizing educational technology units:
1. Align the goals of the instructional technology unit with the teaching and learning
goals of faculty and students.
2. Locate the instructional technology unit in a department that supports teaching and
learning – this can make it easier for faculty to locate and signal the support of the
teaching and learning role by the institution.
3. Reexamine the practice of organizing by technology rather than who benefits from
the technology.
4. Align instructional technology units so that they report to the individual who has the
greatest amount of accountability for the success of the academic programs served.
5. Don’t let administrative convenience guide the location of educational technology unit
but look for areas which will provide the maximum support for the teaching and
learning efforts of faculty.
In 2009 the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation commissioned a report benchmarking online education. The report highlights the
following organizational structure considerations:
1. “Online learning activities are strengthened by the centralization of some
organizational structures and administrative functions that support and sustain the
programs.
2. “Online learning programs overseen by academic affairs units may be more readily
accepted and may be more easily integrated into the fabric of the institution.
3. “Online learning programs succeed with consistent and adequate academic,
administrative, and technological resources for faculty and students”
(APLU & Sloan, 2009).
Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, and Beach (2005) highlighted the importance of creating partnerships
between faculty development centers and instructional technology units or merging to create a
new center.
Types of Support Services
As indicated earlier, some institutions have robust support systems for online learning, and
others do not. The Sloan Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education
Programs (2013) indicates the following support conditions exist in a quality online program:
1. Technical assistance specifically for online course development and online teaching
is provided for faculty.
61
2. Instructors are prepared to teach online education courses and the institution
ensures faculty members receive training, assistance, and support at all times during
the development and delivery of courses.
3. Faculty members receive training and materials related to Fair Use, plagiarism, and
other relevant legal and ethical concepts.
4. Faculty members are provided on-going professional development related to online
teaching and learning.
5. Faculty workshops are provided to make them aware of emerging technologies and
the selection and use of these tools.
Other recommendations are listed earlier in this report in the section Program/Institution Level
Quality Assurance Guidelines.
Policy, Practices & Campus Culture
The strategic use of information technology has the ability to transform teaching and learning,
according to the APLU 2009 study. The Educause library on teaching and learning indicates
“the strategic use of information technology can enhance student engagement, improve access,
and make services more convenient. However, as IT is integrated into the academic enterprise,
a number of other issues are raised such as financing, policies, faculty involvement, and
assessment,” (Educause, 2014).
The APLU-Sloan Commission on Online Learning (2009) stated that “online learning programs
have the capacity to change campus culture and become fully integrated if presidents,
chancellors, chief academic officers, and other senior campus leaders are fully engaged in the
delivery of ‘messages’ that tie online education to fundamental institutional missions and
priorities.” The commission pointed to issues such as shared vision, centralized organizational
structures and administrative functions, reliable financing mechanisms, and consistent and
adequate academic, administrative, and technological resources for faculty and students as
being essential for success. The Commission also indicated that online programs may work
most effectively when they are a core component of institutional strategic planning and
implementation. Ongoing institutional assessment and review of online learning initiatives are
advisable, due to their evolving and dynamic nature (APLU & Sloan, 2009).
Additionally, the APLU-Sloan Commission on Online Learning had these recommendations on
leadership and policy:
1. “Campus leaders need to better understand the characteristics of the online teaching
populations on their campus and use communication strategies that target and engage
all faculty members.
2. “Campus leaders should maintain consistent communication with all faculty and
administrators regarding the role and purpose of online learning programs as they relate
to academic mission and academic quality. Further, campus leaders, administrators, and
faculty must all work together to improve the quality—or perceived quality—of online
learning outcomes.
3. “Campus leaders have the potential to expand faculty engagement by better
understanding what motivates faculty to teach online.
4. “Campus leaders and faculty governing bodies need to regularly re-examine institutional
policies regarding faculty incentives, especially in this era of declining financial resources.
Perhaps most importantly, campus leaders need to identify strategies to acknowledge
and recognize the additional time and effort faculty invest in online as compared to faceto-face teaching and learning” (APLU & Sloan, 2009).
62
Faculty Incentives and Motivation
Institutional incentives to use technology in developing and teaching courses fall into two broad
categories:
1. Guidance and tools - such as providing course design requirements, online modules for
self-directed learning or in-class training on technology and course design, and /or
opportunities for faculty to train or mentor other faculty.
2. Recognition and rewards - such as special recognition for the use of technology in
teaching or online teaching performance, considerations in tenure and promotion
guidelines, and release time and/or compensation for designing or delivering online
courses.
A 2010 study from Northern Michigan University found that “while many often think of monetary
incentives, non-monetary incentives are more common in higher education. Recognition and
increased opportunities to assist others (mentoring, for example) offer simple and cost-effective
ways that institutions choose to recognize their faculty” (Stark & Lion, 2010). The authors also
noted “[w]hile faculty might prefer financial incentives in the form of increased pay, few
institutions can respond in such a manner. Institutions might consider other incentives, such as
recognition in a newsletter or an annual event, mentoring or training opportunities (nonfinancial
incentives may pique intrinsic levels of motivation), availability of professional development
funds specifically for web-based learning events, or free-lunch professional development
opportunities. Institutions can get creative when considering the hundreds of options available
as incentives” (Stark & Lion, 2010).
Recommendations for incentives provided by an academic trainer and consultant include the
following:
 Reduce teaching loads so that faculty members can spend sufficient time developing
their online courses
 Provide ongoing training from a range of experts specializing in online course
development and delivery
 Establish communities of practice to encourage collaboration with distance educators
 Establish mentoring programs with experienced instructors, instructional designers,
and trainers
Other possible incentives include mentoring and grant opportunities, public recognition, notes of
appreciation, special parking privileges, graduate assistant support, travel funds,
encouragement from senior-level administrators and department heads, upgrades to software
and hardware, and recognition counting toward promotion and tenure.
Institutions may provide incentives not only to develop online courses, but also to attend faculty
development workshops to improve their technology skills. A 2008 study from Penn State found
that when “faculty were asked to indicate the primary incentive they would want to receive for
participating in professional development related to teaching online...respondents showed an
interest in a range of incentives, [and] no single incentive captured a majority's interest” (Taylor
& McQuiggan, 2008). According to the study:
 23% chose recognition toward promotion and tenure
 17.6% chose a financial incentive
 13.7% chose assistance teaching an online course
63



11.8% chose receipt of a university-sponsored certificate of achievement in online
teaching
4.4% chose release time to develop or deliver online courses
11.8% of the respondents indicated that no incentive was necessary
In the 2008 study, the researchers concluded that, “More than ever, faculty need rewards for
their instructional development efforts through release time, monetary awards, software and
hardware support, and credit in the salary, promotion, and tenure process. Faculty members
don’t need motivation; they need support. Faculty members have many interests and obligations
competing for their time. The incentives structures indicating what our universities value still tilt
heavily toward traditional research. Our best advice is to change these traditional incentive
structures” (Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008).
64
Works Cited
Abilene Christian University. (2014). Mobile learning at ACU. Retrieved from
http://www.acu.edu/technology/mobilelearning/
American Institutes for Research. (2014). Delta cost project. Retrieved from
http://www.deltacostproject.org/
Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. (2012). The Future of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/07/27/the-future-of-higher-education/
Ashley, J. (2003). Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication Tools. American Society of
Association Executives, Center for Association Leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/articledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=13572
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) & Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. (2009).
Online learning as strategic asset, p. 5. Retrieved from
www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=1877
Babson Survey Research Group. (2013). Changing course infographic. Retrieved from
http://www.pearsonlearningsolutions.com/assets/downloads/reports/changing-coursesurvey.pdf
Babson Survey Research Group. (2013). Changing course: ten years of tracking online
education in the United States. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/changing_course_2012
Babson Survey Research Group. (2012). Going the distance. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011
Babson Survey Research Group. (2014). Grade change: tracking online education in the United
States. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/grade-change-2013
Baek, E. & Monaghan, J. (2013). Journey to textbook affordability: an investigation of students’
use of e-textbooks at multiple campuses. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, Vol. 14, July.
Barker, K. (2002). Canadian recommended e-learning guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.futured.com/pdf/CanREGs%20Eng.pdf
Bates, A. & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: strategies for
transforming teaching and learning. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
Blended Learning. (2004). Educause Research Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/blended-learning
65
Boise State University. (2014). Mobile Learning. Retrieved from
http://mobilelearning.boisestate.edu/
Bowling Green State University. (n.d.). Interactive distance education for all learners. Retrieved
from www2.bgsu.edu/offices/assessment/page31571.html
Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). Clickers and metacognition: A quasi-experimental
comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback
devices. Computers & Education: Vol. 65. 56–63.
Carlson, S. (2014). Accounting for success. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://m.chronicle.com/article/Accounting-for-Success/144351/
Carnevale, A., Rose, S., & Hanson, A. (2012). Certificates: gateway to gainful employment and
college degrees. Georgetown University, June 5. Retrieved from
http://cew.georgetown.edu/certificates/
Central Washington University. (2014) Skype Chat. Retrieved from
http://www.cwu.edu/admissions/skype-chat
Chafkin, M. (2013). Udacity's Sebastian Thrun, godfather of free online education, changes
course. Fast Company. Nov 13. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/3021473/udacity-sebastian-thrun-uphill-climb
Christensen, C. & Horn, M. (2013). Innovation imperative: change everything. New York Times.
Nov 1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/education/edlife/onlineeducation-as-an-agent-of-transformation.html?_r=0
Clemson University. (2014). Adobe Connect 8. Retrieved from
http://www.clemson.edu/ccit/learning_tech/ccit_training/ott/adobe_connect/
Dahlstrom, E. Walker, J., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and
information technology. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecarstudy-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2013
Dormehl, L. (2013, October 15). This Algorithm Can Predict Your Success at University.
Retrieved from http://www.fastcolabs.com/3020036/this-algorithm-can-predict-yoursuccess-at-university
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended Learning.
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/blended-learning
Educause Learning Initiative. (2013). 7 things you should know about MOOCs. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-should-know-about-moocs-ii
Educause Learning Initiative. (2006). 7 things you should know about virtual worlds. Retrieved
from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7015.pdf
66
Educause Learning Initiative Annual Meeting. (2013). Giving credit where and when it is due:
adventures in digital credentials and badges. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/eli/events/eli-annual-meeting/2013/2013/giving-credit-whereand-when-it-due-adventures-digital-credentials-and-badges
Educause Library. (2014). Competency-based learning. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/eli/events/eli-annual-meeting/2013/2013/giving-credit-whereand-when-it-due-adventures-digital-credentials-and-badges
Educause Library. (2014). Learning management systems (LMS). Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/learning-management-systems-lms - jqtab-0
Eduventures. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.eduventures.com/
Embanet. (2014). Retrieved from http://embanet.com/
Elliot, S. (2003). Intellimetric TM: From Here to Validity. In Automated Essay Scoring: A CrossDisciplinary Perspective, p. 75. Shermis, M. & Burstein, J., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Fain, P. (2012). Not Just Degrees. Inside Higher Education, June 6. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/06/certificates-are-misunderstoodcredentials-pay-mostly-men
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2013). Fact sheet on digital textbooks. Retrieved
from http://www.fcc.gov/document/fact-sheet-digital-textbook-playbook
Fritz, J. (2013). Using analytics at UMBS: encouraging student responsibility and identifying
course design. Educause Research Bulletin. April 30. Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB1304.pdf
Future of Mobile Learning. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.onlinecollege.org/2011/07/05/10major-mobile-learning-trends-to-watch-for/
Fuhrman, T. (2013). How to Earn a Graduate Degree on a Smartphone. Campus Technology.
Nov. 14. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2013/11/14/how-to-earna-graduate-degree-on-a-smartphone.aspx
Game design. (2014). Retrieved from http://gamification.org/wiki/Game_Design
Graves, A. (2013). The credentialing economy: transformed by and for its beneficiaries.
Educause Review Online, Dec. 6. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/credentialing-economy-transformed-and-itsbeneficiaries
Greenhow, C. & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: Tweeting as a New Literacy Practice. The
Educational Forum, 76: 463–477. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2012.709032
67
Hartman, J. & Truman-Davis, B. (2001). Institutionalizing support for faculty use of technology
at the University of Central Florida. In R. Epper & A. Bates (Eds.), Teaching faculty how
to use technology. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Oryx.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report:
2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing
outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of
Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x
Kaplan, M. (2011, June 13). How clicker technology is changing higher education [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/how-clicker-technology-ischanging-higher-education/6495
Kirshstein, R. and Wellman, J. (2012). “Technology and the broken higher education cost
model: Insights from the Delta Cost Project.” Educause Review. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/technology-and-broken-higher-education-costmodel-insights-delta-cost-project
Kolowich, S. (2012). Pearson partners with Ivy Tech for self-paced, online gen-ed courses.
Inside Higher Ed. April 29.
Lion, R. W. & Stark, G. (2010). A glance at institutional support for faculty teaching in an online
learning environment. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/glanceinstitutional-support-faculty-teaching-online-learning-environment
Markoff, J. (2013). “Essay-Grading Software Offers Professors a Break.” NY Times. April 4.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/science/new-test-for-computers-grading-essays-atcollege-level.html?_r=0
Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: an active learning approach. Educause Quarterly,
Vol. 2.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2002). Distance education programs:
interregional guidelines for the evaluation of distance education (online learning).
Retrieved from http://www.msche.org/publications/Guidelines-for-the-Evaluation-ofDistance-Education-Programs.pdf.
Nworie, J. (2006). Academic technology in higher education: organizing for better results.
Journal Educational Technology Systems, Vol 35(1), 105-128.
Picciano, A. (2011). Introduction to the special issue on transitioning to blended learning.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol 15:1.
Pursel, B. & Fang, H. (2012). Lecture Capture: Current Research and Future
Directions. Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence, Pennsylvania State
University. Retrieved from
http://www.psu.edu/dept/site/pursel_lecture_capture_2012v1.pdf
68
Riismandel, P. (2013). Three Paths to Lecture Capture in Higher Education. Streaming Media
Magazine, February/March 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=88176&PageNum=1
Sloan Consortium. (2013). A quality scorecard for the administration of online education
programs. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/quality_scoreboard_online_program
Sloan Consortium. (n.d.) A synthesis of Sloan-C effective practices & the pillar reference
manual. Retrieved from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/effective
Sorcinelli, M., Austin, A., Eddy, P., & Beach, A. (2005). Creating the future of faculty
development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Jossey-Bass.
Straumsheim, C. (2013 November 20). Distance education state reciprocity initiative prepares to
welcome first members. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/20/distance-education-state-reciprocity-initiativeprepares-welcome-first-members - sthash.GmU3hjL0.dpbs
Syberworks. (n.d.). Documentation and e-learning: get real – delivering training to mobile users.
Retrieved from http://www.syberworks.com/articles/documentation-and-elearning-part6article.htm
Taylor, A. and McQuiggan, C. (2008). “Faculty Development Programming: If We Build It, Will
They Come?” Educause Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/faculty-development-programming-if-we-build-it-willthey-come
University of Washington. (2014a). Adobe discount program. Retrieved from
http://www.washington.edu/itconnect/wares/uware/adobe-discount-program/
University of Washington. (2014b). Prepare for when classes can’t meet. Retrieved from
http://www.washington.edu/itconnect/learn/prepare/
University System of Georgia. (2012). eCore: Georgia’s college core-curriculum online.
Retrieved from https://ecore.usg.edu/2012_factbook/
US Department of Education. (2014). Competency-based learning or personalized learning.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalizedlearning
US News and World Report (2014, February 20). Online Education. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education
Watters, A. (2012, December 19). Top ed-tech trends of 2012: the battle to open textbooks.
Inside Higher Ed. [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/hack-higher-education/top-ed-tech-trends-2012battle-open-textbooks
69
Zhu, E. & Bergom, I. (2010). Lecture Capture: A Guide for Effective Use. CRLT Occasional
Papers Series, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan,
No. 27.
70
Appendix G – Pertinent Data from Task Force Survey Fall 2013
Technology Integration
Basic: Create and share documents or presentations with students, communicate with
students by email, and/or post grades electronically.
Moderate: Integrate online resources for instructional use, create instructional videos
and/or narrated slide presentations to deliver over the Internet, use instructional
technology with students to analyze their progress, and/or lead students in using
technology to create their own materials.
Comprehensive: Create digital and/or online learning activities or assessments, lead or
facilitate synchronous teaching and learning sessions for presenting content and
interacting with students, and/or use multiple technological tools to present information
and concepts or lead classroom learning activities.
How would you rate your current integration of technology
into your teaching?
Moderate
47%
Basic
Comprehensive
Comprehensive
20%
Moderate
No Response
No Response
1%
Basic
32%
Row Labels
Basic
Comprehensive
Moderate
No Response
Count of
User
38
24
56
1
71
Grand Total
119
72
Sakai Usage Level
Basic: Post Syllabus, use Email, post Announcements, post Grades, and/or share course
content in Resources.
Moderate: Do the above and require students submit Assignments, discussion Forum
posts, and/or take Quizzes.
Comprehensive: Do the above and integrate content and learning activities with Lessons
tool or other tools in Sakai.
I do not use
6%
How would you rate your Sakai usage level?
No Response
2%
Comprehensive
17%
Moderate
Moderate
47%
Basic
Comprehensiv
e
I do not use
Basic
28%
Row Labels
Moderate
Basic
Comprehensive
I do not use
No Response
Grand Total
Count of
User
56
34
20
7
2
119
73
Digital Literacy
Consumer: Find and read articles and/or blogs online, purchase items online and/or view
quality ratings of products or services, and/or find and view videos or photos.
Contributor: Contribute to a blog or forum conversation, search and contribute reviews
for products or services, and/or upload and tag photos or video for sharing online.
Producer: Create or maintain a Web site, wiki, blog, or discussion forum; and/or produce
and edit videos and audio for presentation online.
How would you rate your current digital and media literacy?
No Response
2%
I do not use
1%
Contributor
24%
Consumer
Consumer
44%
Producer
Contributor
No Response
I do not use
Producer
29%
Count of
Row Labels User
Consumer
53
Producer
34
Contributor
29
No
Response
2
I do not use
1
Grand Total
119
74
Technology Adoption
When a new technology (hardware, software, or Web application) becomes available, how
quickly do you tend to adopt it?
How quickly do you adopt new technology?
When it becomes
mainstream
35%
I'm one of the first to
try it…
After most of my
colleagues
4%
I never adopt it
3%
No Response
3%
Before most of my
colleagues
45%
Row Labels
Before most of my
colleagues
When it becomes
mainstream
I'm one of the first to try it
After most of my colleagues
I never adopt it
No Response
Grand Total
Count of
User
53
41
12
5
4
4
119
75
Teaching Contexts
Teaching Contexts (counts)
90
81
86
80
70
60
50
40
30
28
30
25
28
14
12
20
10
0
Teaching Contexts (counts)
Other
14
Field experience, internship, practicum, or clinical
28
Studio or ensemble/rehearsal
12
Research team/lab
30
Online course
25
Hybrid course
28
Lecture-based class
86
Discussion based class
81
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
76
Types of Applications/ Tools
What types of applications and web-based tools did you use or ask your students to use in these contexts? Select all that apply.
What types of applications and web-based tools did you use or ask your students to
use in these contexts? (counts)
120
100
99
80
63
61
60
40
20
12
11
17
21
39
27
11
22
24
5
8
19
13
13
9
22
17
3
0
77
What types of applications and web-based tools did you use or ask your students to
use in these contexts? (%)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
83%
53%
51%
33%
10%
9%
14%
18%
23%
9%
18%
20%
4%
7%
16%
11%
11%
18%
8%
14%
3%
78
Purpose
For which of the following purposes did you use technology in these contexts? Select all that apply.
Purpose for using technology (counts)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
94
91
86
77
67
65
51
71
57
55
61
27
6
79
Purpose for using technology (%)
90%
79%
80%
70%
60%
50%
76%
72%
65%
56%
55%
43%
60%
48%
46%
51%
40%
30%
23%
20%
10%
5%
0%
80
Prepare Students
How would you rate your agreement with the following statement: "The university is
preparing students to successfully use technology in their respective professions when
they graduate."
How would you rate your agreement with the following
statement: "The university is preparing students to
successfully use technology in their respective professions
when they graduate."
Strongly Disagree
No Response
3%
8%
Disagree
9%
Agree
29%
Strongly Agree
11%
Other
14%
Row Labels
Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Other
Strongly Agree
Disagree
No Response
Strongly Disagree
Grand Total
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
26%
Count of
User
35
31
17
13
11
9
3
119
81
Obstacles
When you used or planned to use technology to support your teaching in a classroom or lab environment, to what extent, if at
all, did the following present an obstacle to you?
Technological Obstacles (counts)
Lack of resources to purchase technology
10
Lack of access to necessary technology
47
49
10
12
Lack of time to teach students to use the technology
13
Concern about a technical problem affecting my teaching
11
Lack of timely technical support
50
34
22
28
33
44
42
42
21
13
19
Lack of time to learn how to use the technology
45
12
11
0
Minor obstacle
10
50
42
7
Lack of knowledge about teaching technologies available for use at BU
50
39
18
13
Lack of knowledge about how to use the technology to achieve my goals
and/or where to go to learn more
51
38
16
12
Lack of time to maintain or monitor technology once implemented
Not an obstacle
59
24
24
11
Concern about students' ability to access needed software or equipment
45
36
26
11
Lack of incentives to use technology in teaching
38
40
30
20
Major obstacle
30
40
50
50
60
70
No Response
82
Technological Obstacles (%)
8%
Lack of access to necessary technology
22%
9%
Lack of incentives to use technology in teaching
38%
30%
50%
20%
20%
9%
Concern about students' ability to access needed software or equipment
39%
41%
8%
10%
Lack of time to teach students to use the technology
9%
Lack of timely technical support
28%
Lack of knowledge about how to use the technology to achieve my goals
and/or where to go to learn more
24%
37%
35%
35%
18%
11%
42%
29%
18%
11%
42%
33%
15%
10%
Lack of time to maintain or monitor technology once implemented
43%
32%
13%
11%
Concern about a technical problem affecting my teaching
16%
Lack of time to learn how to use the technology
35%
6%
38%
Lack of knowledge about teaching technologies available for use at BU
10%
9%
0%
Not an obstacle
32%
34%
25%
Lack of resources to purchase technology
Minor obstacle
10%
20%
Major obstacle
30%
40%
42%
42%
50%
60%
No Response
83
Required Online Resources
Required Online Resources (counts)
Incentives (e.g. financial, release time) to develop online courses
11
Increased media production resources (e.g. lecture capture, studios)
12
Increased media production support (e.g. video, audio, graphics production)
11
Increased instructional design support
12
16
10
Somewhat important
0
43
18
Increased training for developing online instruction
Not important
10
20
49
39
20
11
50
38
19
Increased training for delivering online instruction
Very important
58
34
22
22
46
52
34
38
No Response
30
40
49
50
60
70
84
Required Online Resources (%)
Incentives (e.g. financial, release time) to develop online courses
9%
13%
Increased media production resources (e.g. lecture capture, studios)
10%
Increased media production support (e.g. video, audio, graphics production)
9%
Increased instructional design support
10%
Increased training for developing online instruction
Very important
Somewhat important
20%
Not important
44%
29%
41%
32%
18%
8%
10%
39%
36%
15%
18%
41%
33%
17%
9%
42%
32%
16%
Increased training for delivering online instruction
0%
49%
29%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No Response
85
Technology Changes
There are several technology-related changes that Bradley could pursue over the next three years. What priority would you
assign to each item?
Technology Changes (counts)
Improve wireless infrastructure across campus
Increase the number of classrooms with advanced technologies (e.g. lecture
capture, studio classroom)
24
Sponsor forums for collegial discussion of teaching with technology
6
Improve response to classroom technical problems (e.g. funding to hire more
staff)
6
Expand the technical support available in my department or college
20
19
74
32 35
Medium Priority
10
46
39 43
31
5
0
50
40
28
6
Expand online course offerings
45
4749
6
Offer online degree or certificate programs
37
37
26
5
Provide additional incentives to develop and teach online classes
High Priority
31
18
5
Increase Green IT efforts (reducing use of paper, etc...)
52
37
6
Provide more support on how to select and use technology to meet my
instructional goals
49
40
24
6
50
40
22
7
Equip similar-sized classrooms across campus with the same standard
technologies
58
30
22
9
20
Low Priority
30
40
47
50
60
70
80
No Response
86
Technology Changes (%)
Improve wireless infrastructure across campus
Increase the number of classrooms with advanced technologies (e.g. lecture
capture, studio classroom)
20%
Sponsor forums for collegial discussion of teaching with technology
5%
Improve response to classroom technical problems (e.g. funding to hire more
staff)
5%
Expand the technical support available in my department or college
4%
Increase Green IT efforts (reducing use of paper, etc...)
Provide additional incentives to develop and teach online classes
5%
Expand online course offerings
Medium Priority
10%
38%
42%
41%
39%
15%
34% 39%
24%
26%
33%36%
17%
16%
62%
27%
29%
4%
0%
31%
31%
22%
5%
Offer online degree or certificate programs
High Priority
26%
4%
44%
31%
5%
Provide more support on how to select and use technology to meet my
instructional goals
41%
34%
20%
5%
42%
34%
18%
6%
Equip similar-sized classrooms across campus with the same standard
technologies
49%
25%
18%
8%
20%
Low Priority
30%
39%
40%
50%
60%
70%
No Response
87
Appendix H – Pertinent Student Market Data – 2013
Internet Access and use of

About 96% of Internet users have high-speed Internet
o Of Bachelor’s degree owners, this number rises to 97.5%
88
Total Post-Secondary Enrollment Projections


Increased 45 percent from 1997 to 2011, a period of 14 years
Projected to increase 14 percent, to 24 million, from 2011 to 2022, a period of 11 years
89
Enrollment by Selected Characteristics
Age Group
Enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting institutions of students who are 18 to 24 years old


Increased 49 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 9 percent between 2011 and 2022
90
Enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting institutions of students who are 25 to 34 years old


Increased 51 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 20 percent between 2011 and 2022
Enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting institutions of students who are 35 years old and over


Increased 26 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 23 percent between 2011 and 2022
Enrollment by Attendance Status
Enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting institutions of full-time students


Increased 54 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 12 percent between 2011 and 2022
91
Enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting institutions of part-time students


Increased 32 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 16 percent between 2011 and 2022
92
Enrollment by Level of Student
Enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting institutions of undergraduate students


Increased 45 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 13 percent between 2011 and 2022
Enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting institutions of postbaccalaureate students

Increased 43 percent between 1997 and 2011
93
Enrollment by Type of Institution
Enrollment in public postsecondary degree-granting institutions


Increased 35 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 14 percent between 2011 and 2022
Enrollment in private postsecondary degree-granting institutions


Increased 78 percent between 1997 and 2011
Projected to increase 14 percent between 2011 and 2022
94
Faculty vs. Student Perception of Online Courses
http://search.proquest.com/abiglobal/docview/200158724/13D31645DFD60218A30/1?accountid=9699
A study was published in the Journal of Information Systems Education by Wilkes, Simon, and Brooks, comparing faculty and
students perception of online courses, finding faculty to be much less supportive.

Only 19.1% of student respondents would not be willing to take a course online
95


Participants identified characteristics of online and on-campus courses
On-campus results omitted from this summary
96
Status
I would not teach an
online course
I would consider
teaching a course
online
I would like to teach a
course online
I plan to teach a course
online
I am currently
teaching a course
online
I have taught a course
online


Percentage of All
Respondents (n=54)
29.63
Percentage of Male
Respondents (n=40)
30.00
Percentage of Female
Respondents (n=13)
23.08
55.56
52.50
69.23
11.11
12.50
7.69
7.41
10.00
0
0
0
0
9.26
7.50
15.38
This table was edited only in format to fit this summary, in the article it is Table 10
The student data leaned much more in favor of online courses than this faculty data
97



This table shows the difference in perception between students and faculty of which characteristics pertain to online
courses and which pertain to on-campus courses
For example, faculty perceive online courses as having highly structured presentation of material.
Students believe online courses are less expensive, but faculty do not distinguish this difference
98
This scale is from 1 being “very favorable” to 5 being “very unfavorable”
99
Online Courses and Drop-Outs
http://www.adesignmedia.com/OnlineResearch/factors-dropoutv8n4_willging.pdf
This study was published in the JALN by two University of Illinois professors, Willging and Johnson. The paper is titled
“FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STUDENTS’ DECISION TO DROPOUT OF ONLINE COURSES.”

Public schools seem to have a higher dropout rate
100