Final Report
April 30, 2010
CPCC eLearning Advisory Committee (eLAC)
eLearning Advisory Committee
eLearning Advisory Committee (eLAC)
2009/2010 Final Report
April 30, 2010
Table of Contents
Subcommittee Report on Test Proctoring
2 - 16
Subcommittee Report on Student Participation
17 - 23
Subcommittee Report on Student Orientation
24 - 31
Subcommittee Report on Quality Design & Delivery
32 - 40
.....Addendum: Qualtiy Course Review Annotated Rubric
41 - 46
.....Addendum: Qualtiy Course Review Annotated Rubric
47 - 48
.....Addendum: Cost Proposal for Quality Matters training options
49 - 50
Subcommittee Report on Strategic Plan
51 - 55
Subcommittee Report on Learning Management System
56 - 66
Subcommittee Report on Collaboration
67 - 74
Subcommittee Report on Office Hours
75 - 78
Subcommittee Report on Faculty Training
79 - 85
1st Edition
1
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Test Proctoring
Erin Reed, Jean Hardy, Adam Brooks, Gary Gilbody, Melissa Vrana, Elizabeth Mitchell, Bill
Kennedy
Central Piedmont Community College
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Jean Hardy, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont Community
College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning Advisory
Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community College
(CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed, Director of
Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community College, 1325 East
7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204. Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
2
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Abstract
The subcommittee for test proctoring, one of nine subcommittees under the parent eLearning
Advisory Committee, 2009-2010, was charged with investigating the needs of faculty currently
using proctoring assessments in their hybrid courses. Our queries revealed that faculty who
required proctored testing had strong misgivings about identity verification of the online test
taker and other issues of honesty. This paper looks at research into evidence of academic
dishonesty in traditional and online courses, proposed “strategies” for curtailing dishonest
behavior, and how this information can be applied to the issues and concerns raised by faculty at
Central Piedmont Community College.
Keywords: online testing, online assessment, test proctoring, virtual proctoring, online
identity, education, distance education, electronic learning, elearning, e-learning, online
learning, online education, online teaching, online courses, online college, community college
online, cpcc
3
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Introduction
The Test Proctoring subcommittee of the eLearning Advisory Committee for 2009-2010 began
by investigating the current usage of the testing center. This investigation identified courses that
had extensive utilization of the testing center for proctoring of exams for online and hybrid
courses. This subcommittee met with faculty from the Mathematics department as a group and
informally surveyed faculty and administrators on an individual basis. The faculty and
departments surveyed generally had high usage of the testing center. A matrix of their concerns
was drawn and prioritized based on these conversations. In this proposal, we will first look at
prominent research in academic dishonesty over the past two decades and then take a detailed
look at the matrix of concerns, reasons for them and possible solutions.
It is generally acknowledged that academic dishonesty has been and remains a pervasive
problem in academics today.
"...recent studies are indicative that academic dishonesty is on the rise (Niels). For
example, McMurtry (2001) cites a 1998 survey from Who’s Who Among American
High School Students which reported that out of 3,123 students, 80 percent of them
"admitted to cheating on an exam, a 10-point increase since the question was first
asked 15 years ago" (Bushweller 1999). Furthermore, 50 percent of them "did not
believe cheating was necessarily wrong," and 95 percent of those who had cheated
"said they had never been caught" (Kleiner and Lord 1999).
Furthermore, a study by McCabe and Trevino saw:
"significant increases were found in the most explicit forms of test or exam
cheating. Disturbing increases were also found among women and in collaborative
cheating (unpermitted collaboration among students on written assignments).
Although no significant increases were observed in the most explicit forms of
cheating on written assignments, this may be due to a changing definition among
students of what constitutes plagiarism. In general, student understanding of
appropriate citation techniques seems to have changed, and selected behaviors that
4
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
students may have classified as plagiarism in Bowers’s (1964) study do not appear
to be considered plagiarism by many students today."
Seeking to synthesize the variety of completed research into a comprehensive multicampus,
decade long study, McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield published their research findings in the
article, “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research." As an outcome of their
research they concluded that, "The contextual factors (peer cheating behavior, peer disapproval
of cheating behavior, and perceived severity of penalties for cheating) were significantly more
influential than the individual factors (age, gender, GPA, and participation in extracurricular
activities).” Their research suggested that institutions can significantly impact the amount of
academic dishonesty among students by implementing institutional policies and codes of
conduct. They further elaborated a series of recommendations for Managing Cheating in the
Classroom from both the student and teacher perspectives. (See Tables 3 & 4 below).
In a 2008 publication, The Net Generation Cheating Challenge, V. Milliron and K. Sandoe
addressed the impact of technology and the Internet on academic integrity. They pointed out that:
”In a recent issue of Ethics & Behavior devoted to the topic of academic dishonesty,
the editor comments, ‘this special issue shows that the 'Internet revolution'
facilitates new types of academic dishonesty’ (Wowra 2007). An online survey of
over 1,300 undergraduate students indicates that almost half (45.6%) reported using
both conventional and digital methods to cheat (Stephens 2007). Furthermore,
research suggests that cheating in high school is a strong predictor of cheating in
college (Harding et al. 2007) and that cheating in college is predictive of future ruleviolating intent (Lovett-Hooper et al. 2007). Given students' propensity to cheat for
a variety of reasons (Davy et al. 2007), online coursework merely adds one more
vehicle of potential academic dishonesty for a tech-savvy generation.”
In light of this background information, academic dishonesty has been around a long time, it
seems to be on the rise, and the inevitable introduction of new technologies will only provide for
new opportunity, what can distance educators do? Let’s first look at the major issues faced by
faculty here at CPCC as they were prioritized in the matrix of concern.
5
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
First Priority Issues
These issues were deemed first priority status as stumbling blocks and/or overriding concerns
preventing faculty at CPCC from utilizing online assessment in their hybrid courses.
Accreditation Needs. Select accreditation institutions do not accept online coursework and/
or assessment scores. The American Bar Association "due to its rigorous restrictions and
demands, does not grant accreditation to fully online graduate law programs." (Troubadour, C.)
In addition, several health science courses rely heavily on lab work evaluations which do not
have a virtual counterpart. For programs that require more traditional or stringent forms of
assessment to meet accreditation needs, CPCC must be prepared to provide reasonable
accommodations and resources (technologies) to allow for at a distance delivery.
Verifying Student Identity. Distance education opens the door to a new set of ethical
malpractices. Surveys and research on distance learning have revealed that instructors and
educators are concerned about the identity of the learner who is accessing content and being
assessed through distance learning. Through traditional in-person delivery, we are able to build
relationships with learners and provide structured assessment environments in which we can
identify those contributing to coursework and assessment. Creating an approach that mirrors the
traditional model at a distance, however, is challenging. In response to these challenges
instructors seek to identify equivalent alternatives and often suggest supervised assessment (or
proctoring), biometrics, digital signatures, and incorporating non-traditional measurements.
(Kennedy, Nowak, Raghuraman, Thomas, & Davis, 2000)
Though these technologies may help to mitigate these challenges, they may not provide
optimal solutions due to costs and complexity. CPCC must provide solutions that meet the needs
of curriculum courses that heavily utilize the testing center for proctored testing. If a third party
software or service is implemented, who will cover the cost?
Changing Current Assessment Practices. The literature suggests a shift in paradigm.
Faculty must change their perspective and practice of online assessment. This will be a major
issue in defining the quality of online education at CPCC. Traditional assessments delivered in
the face-to-face environment may need to be redefined in online delivery. This shift has begun
at the College within multiple divisions and programs including IT, Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Student Success, English, and others. If change is to be embraced by all areas of the
College, these new practices must be a collaborative effort between faculty and administration.
6
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Below is a list of solutions posed by Melissa Olt in her paper, "Ethics and Distance Education:
Strategies for Minimizing Academic Dishonesty in Online Assessment."
1. Invest in the time to develop and design effective online assessments. See Illinois Online Network for advice in how to do this. Methods include
asking higher order, mastery type questions and focusing on a process
rather than final product. A useful resource written by Dewey, (2000) is
“Multiple Choice Items which Require Comprehension.” (Cooper 2000).
2. “Rotate the curriculum” modify assignments, assessments to prohibit
sharing of graded work. (Van Bell, n.d.)
3. Inform students of Academic integrity/Codes of Conduct/Dishonesty
policies already in place. “According to McMurtry (2001), instructors
should take the necessary time to discuss their academic policy with their
students.” In a paper by Dirks, (1998) only “15 percent of the syllabi
collected had academic policies in them.”
7
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
8
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Below is a sample of the first part of a “Cheatability Rubric” designed to help instructors
evaluate their course design:
Excerpted from Cheatability Rubric created by Jared M. Stein, Marc Hugentobler, & John Krutsch
Sketching and Equation Editors. The current tools available to faculty and students are
limited and difficult to use. These tools are essential to math, business, health, and science
courses. The ability of educators and learners to efficiently communicate mathematical and
technical works is essential for online success. For example, faculty must be able to digitally
create mathematical equations that are usable by students and students must be able to
demonstrate their work in a way that is usable by faculty.
9
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Faculty Training Needs. As stated in "Changing Current Assessment Practices," a shift in
practices has begun. Faculty, full-time and part-time, must be encouraged and provided with
adequate time, resources, and training to develop new skills and acclimate to new practices that
enable online student success. CPCC must facilitate a cultural shift in how assessments are
viewed. Most importantly, faculty must be given the time and resources to achieve these goals.
Student Training Needs. As the College seeks to implement solutions, we must remain aware
of the impact to student support and their training needs. New approaches and technologies may
carry a learning curve and usability must be closely evaluated. The input from faculty and
students is vital to this process. The online eLearning student orientation may provide an avenue
for delivering training.
Inability to show progression of work over time. When the need to evaluate the process for
arriving at a solution is vital to the skill set, a tool providing this type of functionality is
irreplaceable.
Preventing plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of
the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original
work." (dictionary.com, 2009) Instructors and educators seek to protect the content and research
of others through proper citation in students' submitted coursework and assessments. In distance
learning, there are unique plagiarism-related risks and opportunities.
Plagiarism risks. Distance learning provides a unique opportunity for learners to
plagiarize. There are many web sites, often referred to as "essay mills," available with
research papers for sale or free download. There is a world of information that can be
incorrectly cited or not cited at all. How do we verify that the work submitted to us is
original work of the student?
Plagiarism opportunities. Distance learning provides a unique opportunity for
plagiarism detection as assessments and documents are submitted and transmitted
electronically. Increasingly, colleges are turning to online services and databases to
compare student works electronically against sources and works from all around the
10
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
globe. By this approach, content that has not been properly cited, has been borrowed
from other sources, bought or perhaps copied, will be quickly identified. Some of the
most common plagiarism detection solutions include Blackboard's integrated
"SafeAssign" tool and iParadigms' "Turnitin" program.
Current implementation of SafeAssign addresses this issue. It is less convenient to non
Blackboard LMS users, but is still a functional option.
In addition to a campus wide promotion and awareness of academic honesty, a change must
occur in the current culture of assessment. This will require the support of administration in the
form of technical support: digital equation editors, virtual proctoring solutions and most
importantly in the form of opportunities for faculty to practice and apply new assessment
practices in their courses. A table of current issues, proposed actions and vital resources follows:
Issue
Action
Need
Redefine online assessment
practices
Training for current eLearning Time for faculty to revisit
faculty – online assessment
current testing and assessment
pedagogy and how to
practices.
implement measurable
Incorporate into Quality
objectives. Incorporate
Course Review and possibly
discussion of Student Code of Learning College meetings
Conduct into Quality Course and reviews. A college-wide
specifications.
emphasis on the CPCC
Student Code of Academic
Integrity.
11
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Training for new eLearning
faculty - online assessment
pedagogy and how to
implement measurable
objectives
Time for new faculty to train
in quality course development
according to CPCC standards.
Online Student eLearning
Orientations – clarify
expectations in online
assessment practices –
emphasize student code of
conduct
Required orientations and
training for all eLearning
students.
Face to face eLearning Student Required orientations and
Orientations
training for all eLearning
students.
Include Stated Student Code of Incorporate into Quality
Support from Cabinet.
Conduct in Quality Course
Course specifications the
Review
discussion of and/or emphasis
on a Student Code of Conduct
12
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Test Security Technology -
Test Tasking Technology
Provide faculty with a means Funding for software licenses
or proctoring events.
for improving security in
online testing environments.
Possible technologies:
• Respondus Lockdown
Browser
• Proctor U with Axiom
• Secure Exam
• KryterionWebassessor Online
Secure Testing
• Google Docs Equation
Editor
• Google Tools Drawing
application
• Word 2007 Chemistry
Symbol add on
Test Proctoring
Participate in the
Offer CPCC services as
North Carolina state-wide test national and/or state test
proctoring network - now in
proctoring site. Contact
stage one of development.
Mandy Dough
Stage two will incorporate
(dougha@ecu.edu) for
community colleges and
additional information about
should be operating by fall
North Carolina state-wide test
2010.
proctoring network.
Participate in the
Consortium of College Testing
Centers
In conclusion, much emphasis has been placed on the instructor's responsibility to establish a
learning environment that respects academic integrity. However, it is noted by Heberling,
himself a college administrator,
13
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
"...the administration needs to assure the faculty that they will not be put on trial or
endure a bureaucratic nightmare for simply maintaining ethical standards in their
classroom. This means that the administration must be willing to stand behind the
faculty when the students seek to mitigate or overturn their punishment. When the
administration and faculty work together, it sends a clear and unified message to all
students that cheating and plagiarism will not be tolerated in any class (traditional or
online). "
14
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
References
Abbott, Siskovic, Nogues, & Williams, (2000) Learner Assessment in Multimedia Instruction:
Considerations for the Instructional Designer. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/6a/
2e.pdf
Dewey. (2000). Multiple Choice Items which Require Comprehension. Retrieved March 10,
2010, from http://www.psywww.com/selfquiz/aboutq.htm
Flexknowlogy, The Cheatability Rubric. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from
http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/pres/cheatability/ & http://learningfield.org/cheat/
Heberling, M. Ph.D. Maintaining Academic Integrity in Online Education. Retrieved March 10,
2010, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/heberling51.pdf
Illinois Online Network. http://www.ion.illinois.edu/resources/
McCabe, D L., Trevino, K. L. & Butterfield, K. D.. "Cheating in Academic Institutions: A
Decade of Research." Ethics and Behavior 11.3 (2001): 219-231. Retrieved March 10, 2010,
from http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/plagiarism/docs/McCabe_et_al.pdf
Milliron,V & Sandoe, K. (2008). The Net Generation Challenge to Cheat. Innovate, 6 (4), (8/9).
Retrieved March 15. 2010, from http://innovateonline.info/
Naude, E & Hörne, T. Cheating or ‘Collaborative Work’: Does it Pay? Retrieved March 10,
2010 from http://informingscience.org/proceedings/InSITE2006/IISITNaud223.pdf
Rowe, N. C. Cheating in Online Student Assessment: Beyond Plagiarism. Retrieved March 10,
2010, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer72/rowe72.pdf
15
eLearning Advisory Committee: Test Proctoring
Olt, M. R. "Ethics and Distance Education: Strategies for Minimizing Academic Dishonesty in
Online Assessment. Retrieved, March 10, 2010, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/
fall53/olt53.pdf
Samples of Honor Codes:
Oregon State University. Academic Honesty and Online Courses” Retrieved March 10, 2010,
from the Oregon State University website: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/econ/pdf/
cheat.online.pap6.pdf
Napa Valley College. Academic Honesty in Online Courses. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from the
Napa Valley College website: http://www.napavalley.edu/Academics/OnlineEd/Pages/
AcademicHonestyInOnlineCourses.aspx
Troubadour, C. ABA Online Schools from the eHow website: http://www.ehow.com/
list_5959400_aba-online-schools.html\
16
eLearning Advisory Committee: Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
Erin Reed, Lane Grann-Stahl, Gary Gilbody, William Kennedy, Chris Jolly, Vince Ossisek,
Felesia Stukes, Sonya (Rudy) Johnson, Anne McIntosh, Catalina Ramirez, Teeku Patel
Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC)
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Lane Grann-Stahl, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning
Advisory Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community
College (CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed,
Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community
College, 1325 East 7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204. Email: Erin.reed@cpcc.edu
17
eLearning Advisory Committee: Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
Abstract
Currently auditors accept a minimum of one "hit" in the LMS statistics within the 10% period,
i.e., between and including the start and 10% date, to establish official enrollment in an online
course. Everyone in this subcommittee was in agreement with this standard and discussion
focused, instead, on a related issue: the lack of awareness on the part of some online students of
the need to login to the LMS during the 10% period. Not doing so results in a WN for these
students; even if they are reinstated, their late start reduces their chances for success, disrupts the
instructor’s teaching, and results in a loss of FTE for the College. Seven communication
opportunities were identified for getting this message to students taking a distance course. Only
one option--that of adding a message within the online registration system--requires further
administrative action, and this subcommittee recommends that this be evaluated and
implemented unless it becomes unfeasible due to high costs of coding changes in system.
Keywords: education, distance education, electronic learning, elearning, e-learning, online
learning, online education, online teaching, online courses, online college, community college
online, cpcc, community college
18
eLearning Advisory Committee: Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
Introduction and Findings
Currently auditors accept a minimum of one "hit" in the LMS statistics within the 10% period,
i.e., between and including the start and 10% date, to establish official enrollment in an online
course.
Everyone in the subcommittee was in agreement with this standard and discussion focused,
instead, on a related issue: the lack of awareness on the part of some online students of the need
to login to the LMS during the 10% period. Not doing so results in a WN for these students;
even if they are reinstated, their late start reduces their chances for success, disrupts the
instructor’s teaching, and results in a loss of FTE for the College.
Brenda Leonard (Assoc. Vice President, Compliance and Audit), indicated in a telephone
interview that although the College doesn’t track bona fide enrollments not counted because the
students didn’t login to the LMS during the census period, she and Richard Redman (Director,
Compliance and Audit)agree that this type of lost FTE does occur, although it is not excessive.
J. J. McEachern (Dean, Enrollment Management- Administration), and his team are already
aware of the need to provide guidance to new online students. At his request, Elizabeth Cooper
(Director of Communications, Community Relations & Marketing Services posts a webspot in
the lower right hand corner of the homepage for online students (see Option 8 in the table below)
that links to the Online Student Orientation page. He is very willing to increase signage in the
registration area and remind counselors and advisors. He doesn’t know if it would be possible or
practical to create a notice for distance students of the importance of logging in to their LMS as
soon as possible in the semester; it would depend on the WebAdvisor registration system.
(Charles Cox of David Kim’s area confirmed via email that nearly 80% of all registrations are
done online, and phone registration is scheduled to be eliminated at some point, so the focus will
be on reaching students who register online or in-person.)
Communication
opportunities to get this
Contact Person(s)
Further Action Needed By
Administration?
message to students
19
eLearning Advisory Committee: Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
(1) During registration:
J. J. McEachern, Dean,
Yes; the registration process would
online, phone, in-person
Enrollment Services 6395
need to be evaluated to see if it is
options are available.
Linda McComb Assoc. Dean,
possible/feasible to include this
Enrollment Svcs 6784
message at some point during or at
David Kim, Associate CIO and
the end of the registration process
Executive Director, ITS
Administrative Information
Services 6828
(2) Increase signage in
J. J. McEachern, Dean,
No; J.J. will take the initiative to do
registration areas at all
Enrollment Services 6395
these things in partnership with
campuses; request
Linda McComb Assoc. Dean,
elearning
advisors and counselors
Enrollment Svcs 6784
to pass the information
on to students
(3) email from ITS to all
Associate CIO, ITS-Instructional
No; Maha’s replacement will be
students
Technology Services 6987
asked to consider including this
message
(4) email to all IN
Erin Reed, Director of
No; Erin will include the message in
students from the
eLearning 6946
her email
(5) Welcome email
Erin Reed, Dir. of eLearning
No; eLearning will contact all
from online instructors
6946
distance instructors and recommend
Director of eLearning
(~1 week before the
start of the semester)
inclusion of the message
sent to their students
prior to or at the
beginning of the
semester
(6) In-person and
Erin Reed, Dir. of eLearning
No; eLearning will include this
online student
6946
message in both the in-person and
orientations done at the
online versions of the online student
beginning of each
orientation and will remind Library
semester
20
eLearning Advisory Committee: Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
partners to do so during the in-person
orientations that they conduct
(7) Welcome email to
Deborah Cox, System
No; eLearning will contact Deborah
students once they
Information Systems
and request that the message be
complete the
Coordinator 6590
included in her email
(8) CPCC Today
Elizabeth Cooper, Marketing
No; Elizabeth already posts this
weekly enewsletter from
6231
webspot
admissions process
(sent from CPCC
Admissions Services)
Marketing to students;
CPCC Homepage
rotating banner image;
CPCC Facebook
on the homepage and links it to the
Online Student Orientation page; she
also offered to create business cardsized passouts with information for
distance students
21
eLearning Advisory Committee: Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
Summary and Final Recommendations
The subcommittee recommends using all eight communication options to inform students that if
they are taking a distance course they should login to Blackboard/Moodle as soon as possible
once the semester begins and preferably on the first Monday. Final wording will be at the
discretion of the department creating the communication. (Distance courses are coded IN, HY,
or TW.) eLearning will coordinate Options 2 - 8.
Option #1 requires additional administrative action: the creation of a notice and insertion
into the registration process could be achieved through a collaboration by ITS (David Kim’s
area), Admissions/ Registration (J. J. McEachern's area) and eLearning (Erin Reed's area). This
subcommittee recommends that this be evaluated and if programming changes are involved, the
value of the message to students be weighed against the costs of coding. The subcommittee
believes that the recommended communications will support online student success as well as
generate some additional FTE , while requiring minimal additional time and effort from College
personnel.
Proposed Implementation Timeline
22
eLearning Advisory Committee: Determining "participation" in online classes for reporting
purposes
References
Telephone interviews were conducted by Lane Grann-Stahl with Arnessa Richbourg (Director of
Auditing, Guilford Tech Community College), Brenda Leonard (Assoc. Vice President,
Compliance and Audit), Larry Bjornsen (Registrar Senior, Admissions and Registration), J. J.
McEachern (Dean, Enrollment Management- Administration), and Elizabeth Cooper (Director of
Communications, Community Relations & Marketing Services).
23
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
Erin Reed, Teeku Patel, Jean Hardy, Sonya Johnson, Erin Payton
Central Piedmont Community College
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Catalina Ramirez, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning
Advisory Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community
College (CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed,
Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community
College, 1325 East 7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204. Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
24
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
Abstract
This subcommittee of the eLearning Advisory Committee was charged with addressing the
fundamental question of should the eLearning Student Orientation and its associated assessments
(SOA) be mandatory and if so, how would this be implemented. Subcommittee members
included Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery; Jean Hardy,
Instructional Development; Sonya Johnson, Mathematics Division; Teeku Patel, Instructional
Development; and Erin Payton, Library Services. The subcommittee members researched how
other institutions implement SOA for their students prior to taking online courses. While most
institutions recommend students go through a SOA to help them become familiar with the online
environment and assess if they are ready, only a handful of institutions actually required students
to participate in a SOA prior to registering for an online course. This report examines the current
SOA implementation at Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) and provides possible
solutions on how CPCC can improve the current SOA process to require student participation
prior to taking an online course, ultimately leading to increased student success and persistence
in online courses being offered at CPCC.
Keywords: education, distance education, electronic learning, elearning, e-learning, online
learning, online education, online orientation, online teaching, online courses, online college,
community college online, cpcc, community college
25
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
Introduction
A number of meetings were held and the group has identified several areas for improvement
and the recommendations for each are outlined below.
The current online student orientation, http://www.cpcc.edu/distance/orientation/online
consists a total of six modules, the first four modules are composed of online presentations,
module five allows students to login to Blackboard and explore the online environment, and
module six would allow students to login to Moodle and explore its online environment, but at
this time it is inactive due to student account creation procedures in regards to Moodle. The
SOA is available online for students and the general public to view. As students progress through
the first four modules, they are presented with five assessments to help them evaluate what they
have just learned and if they are ready for distance education. Instructors are encouraged to
recommend students go through the student orientation either in-person sessions or completing
the online version. Also, students are not prevented from registering for online courses even if
they have not gone through the SOA.
26
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
Recording Assessment Scores. The subcommittee identified that the current assessment
attempts in the SOA are not recorded as the student progresses from module to module. If the
student is taking several online courses, several instructors may require the student go through
the SOA making it a repeated activity for the student.
Recommendation. It is recommended the assessments be made available in the Online
Student Profile website, http://success.cpcc.edu so when students are directed to the Online
Student Profile website, they sign-in, and take the assessments corresponding to the module they
just completed. The students already go to this website to complete "Learning Style" &
"Personality Type" surveys. The result of implementing the assessments in this manner would
be the student has proof for the instructor that they have completed the SOA. The instructor can
login to the Online Student Profile website and view the information for each of their students in
their respective courses.
Prerequisites. In order to increase student retention and success in online courses, CPCC
must require the SOA be completed by all students who plan to take an online course. It is also
27
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
the recommendation of this subcommittee that traditional face-to-face students go through a
similar orientation that introduces them to CPCC processes/expectations and computer skills
needed to be a successful lifelong learning student.
Recommendation. It is recommended that the SOA be a component in ACA 118 'Student
Success' as well as in ACA 112 'Introduction to Distance Education' a two credit hour course
which has been approved through the curriculum community. Other course recommendations
include CIS 070 'Fundamentals of Computing,' and CIS 110 'Introduction to Computers' courses.
CIS 070 is a prerequisite to CIS 110, but a student is able to test-out of CIS 070, therefore
having the SOA be a component of CIS 110 is also recommended since many degrees/programs
require students to take CIS 110. It is also a recommendation of this subcommittee to implement
a registration block for online courses coded IN (fully online), and TW (teleweb) until students
have gone through the SOA. The registration block would be removed once an automated or
manual process of reviewing the assessment results on the success.cpcc.edu website is
performed.
Marketing. The current SOA is marketed every semester via the CPCC Today! Student
newsletter, instructor recommendations to students, and referred to during in-person student
orientations.
Recommendation. It is recommended that the SOA continue to be marketed as mentioned
above, but also to include it on the CPCC homepage spotlight area, and have a statement on the
28
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
students receipt when they pay for classes that they are required to go through the Online
eLearning Student Orientation and provide the URL.
29
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
Summary
In conclusion, given the increasing demand for online courses and decreasing student
persistence in the online courses, CPCC needs to implement a process immediately requiring all
distance learning students go through the online eLearning Student Orientation to be a successful
eLearning student. Having the SOA assessment attempts recorded and stored on
success.cpcc.edu not only would reduce the duplication of effort for the student, but also ease
management tasks for faculty by providing a one-stop location to review student readiness for
distance education. Requiring all distance learning students to go through SOA would ultimately
lead to an increase in student success and persistence in online courses being offered at CPCC.
30
eLearning Advisory: Student Orientation/Assessment for Online Courses
References
Central Piedmont Community College. (2009, November 24). Online Orientation. Retrieved
from
http://www.cpcc.edu/distance/orientation/online
Granite State College. (2009, November 18). Blackboard Orientation. Retrieved from
http://www.granite.edu/academics/online-programs/blackboard-orientation.aspx
Old Dominion University. (2009, November 24). Distance Learning Student Orientation.
Retrieved from
http://www.clt.odu.edu/oso/index.php?src=home
31
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery
Erin Reed, Catalina Ramirez, Lane Grann-Stahl, Hugh Dussek, Vince Osisek, Gary Gilbody,
William Kennedy, Terence Fagan, Elizabeth Mitchell, Jill Lutz, Mike McGee, Elizabeth
Mills, Erin Payton, Felesia Stukes
Central Piedmont Community College
Authors' Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Catalina Ramirez, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College.
This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning Advisory Committee
formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed, Director of Distance
Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community College, 1325 East 7th
Street, Charlotte, NC 28204. Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
32
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
Abstract
This sub-committee was charged with the responsibility of analyzing quality standards and best
practices in design and delivery required for all distance courses at Central Piedmont Community
College. During the first sub-committee meeting, it was unanimously agreed that a Quality
Course Review process should be implemented in all distance courses.
Goal. To identify and recommend a process that would allow the implementation of the key
common elements of the CPCC Quality Course Review in all online, hybrid, and teleweb courses
at CPCC.
Objectives. The following were the objectives set by the task force subcommittee.
• Evaluate the CPCC QCR rubric
• Promote consistent standards; design, teaching, and pedagogies
• Partner with Divisions for viable QCR processes
33
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
Introduction
Central Piedmont Community College is at the forefront of providing students access to a high
quality education. In order to support both students and faculty in the online arena, the eLearning
area has implemented a Quality Course Review (QCR) process utilizing the 2005 Quality
Matters® rubric. The rubric provides a guide to key common elements which should be
contained in every completely online course, while allowing flexibility of design for each faculty
member to deliver unique educational content.
The Current Quality Course Review Process
Since the CPCC implementation in 2006, the Quality Course Review (QCR) process at CPCC is
a voluntary program whereby the Instructional Development team provides feedback and support
to instructors to improve course design. Over one hundred courses have been reviewed.
Figure 1. Quality Course Review Work-flow
34
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
35
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion #1:
The CPCC Quality Course Review Rubric is thorough, effective and does not need immediate
modifications.
(Addendum #1: QCR Rubric)
Recommendations based on Conclusion #1:
1. Promotion of the use of application of existing check list and QCR Annotated Rubric.
2. More visibility for training sessions and forums related to best practices in online
learning, course design and layout.
3. Availability of face-to-face and on-demand training options.
Implementations for Conclusion #1:
1. Several training sessions for Course Layout and Design were scheduled and offered for
the semester rollover period between December 2009 and January 2010.
2. New Blackboard Shells have been created with a new Navigation Course Menu. The
new menu items were chosen after careful consideration of current research in quality
eLearning design and best practices.
3. Training sessions are advertised as follows in different channels:
◦ Monthly, in the eLearning Newsletter
◦ Weekly, in LearnerWeb
◦ Prior to the session, notifications containing specific information about the
training via the eLearning Community or the specific campus email list.
4. eLearning will be responsible for creating awareness to Division Directors (DD) and/or
delegators about the online course development process and QCR process. Each
Instructional Division/Area has been assigned to one Instructional Developer (ID). The
Instructional Developer is responsible for supporting and addressing individual needs of
the area. Course development and QCR process awareness will be one of their
assignments. As Division Directors realize that these processes are in place, they will
refer instructors developing new courses to eLearning. An Instructional Developer will
be then assigned to support individual course developments. Professional Development PD hours would be taken into consideration for significant development.
36
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
Conclusion #2:
The Quality Course Review should be mandatory for every distance course: online (IN), hybrid
(HY), and teleweb (TW). Additionally, any new course* and Division Masters should be
submitted for Quality Course Review. Division Directors or delegators (could be the eLearning
Liaison) will take a lead in the submission process.
*New course:
1. Those that have never been taught online before within the
Division.
2. Those that need dramatic changes because of new textbook
adoptions.
3. New version of an existing course.
Recommendations for Conclusion #2:
1 The creation of guidelines for appropriate use of master courses or QCR reviewed courses
from another instructors. A draft document was developed by eLearning and this subcommittee.
(Addendum #2: Guidelines for Appropriate Use of Master Courses - Draft)
37
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
2 The complete college QCR should be completed by areas/divisions. The following areas have
volunteered to pilot the QCR process:
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Foreign Languages Division
Suggestions that emerged from pilot evaluations will be implemented and progressively included
by other divisions.
3 Suggested pilot process for Division’s Quality Course Review.
Reviewers. Courses would be reviewed by two people:
1. An Instructional Developer (or eLearning partner -librarians)
2. A *Division eLearning Liaison.
* The Division eLearning Liaison would be would be an assigned instructor by the
Division Director who would have the following responsibilities:
Conducting QCRs for all distance courses in the area
Identifying masters
• Overseeing the development or implementation of course changes
• Converting instructors masters into Division Masters
• Serving as the liaison among eLearning, Division Director, Program Chair and
faculty in the Division
Division eLearning Liaisons would be compensated for their additional duties by the
way of re-assigned time or a stipend.
Complete College QCR Process:
38
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
Estimated time for evaluation per course:
Note: The Behavioral and Social Sciences will offer about 40 different distance courses this fall
2010.
Reviewer
Individual
Meeting to
Feedback to Review of
Review
Compile
instructor
Total
Grand total
implementations
human hours
Suggestions
Instructional
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Developer
eLearning
30mins
3:30
Liaison
6:30min
Other Considerations.
This QCR process focuses attention on course layout and design, not the actual administration of
the course. It would be preferable for the QCR process to be completed with semester shells so
that interaction with students can be easily observed. Course design is only one aspect of quality
39
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
online delivery. The teaching practice is equally important but will not be evaluated in this
process. The QCR looks for evidence of instructor presence and involvement. It is not an
instructor evaluation process.
It is recommended that a Quality Matters (QM) expert provides a face-to-face consultation/
workshop and feedback on the CPCC Quality Course Review process. QM is the organization
dedicated to quality assurance in online learning that originally inspired the CPCC QCR rubric
and process. Additionally, it is recommended that eLearning Liaisons achieve the QM Peer
Reviewer Certification, which will prepare and equip them to effectively evaluate distance
courses. This certification can be completed online through a one week course.
(Addendum #3: Quality Matters - QM, training courses and cost)
40
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
ADDENDUM #1
41
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
42
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
43
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
44
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
45
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
46
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
47
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
48
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
ADDENDUM #3
49
eLearning Advisory - Quality: Best Practices in Design & Delivery - Required?
50
eLearning Advisory Committee: # 5 Strategic Plan
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Strategic Plan
Erin Reed, Adam Brooks, Teeku Patel, Catalina Ramirez, Gary Gilbody, Vince Osisek, Mike
McGee, Anne McIntosh, Jeff Scaggs
Central Piedmont Community College
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Adam S. Brooks, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning
Advisory Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community
College (CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed,
Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community
College, 1325 East 7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204. Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
51
eLearning Advisory Committee: # 5 Strategic Plan
Abstract
This sub-committee of the CPCC eLearning Advisory Committee (eLAC) was charged with
addressing the core question of "How do we successfully increase the number of online courses
being offered by Central Piedmont Community College?" Furthermore, what can be done to
allow CPCC more opportunities to provide completely online and at a distance training, degrees,
certificates, and diplomas to our community?
Keywords: elearning programs, elearning degrees, online degrees, elearning completers,
online diplomas, education, distance education, electronic learning, elearning, e-learning,
online learning, online education, online students, online teaching, online courses, online
college, community college online, virtual campus, global campus, online campus cpcc
52
eLearning Advisory Committee: # 5 Strategic Plan
Introduction
eLearning at Central Piedmont Community College continues to proliferate as one of the
preferred delivery methods. Our “virtual” campus is known as the 2nd largest campus at CPCC.
The rapid pace of technological advances, along with increased accessibility to computers and
other types of electronic devices, has shifted the emphasis to an even more encompassing
delivery method for learning.
Current Offerings. As of the Spring term 2010, CPCC offers one degree, an AAS in
Health Information Technologies (HIT), and 7 certificates that can be completed entirely online
and at a distance at this time.
Opportunities and Recommendations
Through group meetings and collaboration sessions, our subcommittee has identified
several opportunities for improvement and made recommendations for each. Each of these are
outlined in the documentation below.
Prerequisites. In order to increase the number of distance offerings, courses in existing
programs must adapt to completely distant delivery methods: IN, HY, TW. Our subcommittee
has identified that though many programs do offer distance learning opportunities, gaps exist in
our course offerings that make it difficult or impossible for learners to become true distance
completers. A report of common courses that are prerequisite barriers to distance completion has
been included as an addendum to this report.
Recommendation. It is the recommendation of this subcommittee that these courses be
prioritized for fully online development and delivery. Furthermore, in prioritizing these courses
for distance delivery, CPCC must also work to address online assessment security and proctoring
needs.
Based on current courses identified, we recommend that Instructional Development and the
Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, and Sustainability (STEMS) division partner to
develop math prerequisite courses for fully online delivery. This would increase the number of
offerings.
Training. In the Fall term of 2008, 412 instructors taught online courses at CPCC. Our
ability to increase the number of fully online offerings is limited by the number of persons
availble to develop and support online instruction. In order to increase the number of fully at a
distance offerings, CPCC must hire and train instructors that are comfortable in, enthusiastic
about, and responsive to the distance teaching and learning environment.
53
eLearning Advisory Committee: # 5 Strategic Plan
Table 1. Fall 2008 Online Instructors
Delivery Method
Full-Time Faculty
Part-Time Faculty Total Faculty
Fully Online
295
117
412
Hybrid
58
5
63
Teleweb
6
7
13
Recommendation. It is the recommendation of this subcommittee that CPCC provide a
required training process for all faculty who are teaching distance learning courses for the
College. This training will consist of online teaching methods, LMS / CMS tools, best practices
for online course management, and effective online assessment practices.
Figure 1. Online Teaching / eLearning Training Needs
Infrastructure. CPCC cannot scale to meet the needs of students and the community with
the current informal and voluntary model for developing and delivering online courses.
Ownership and accountability among administration, Instructional Development, and faculty is
necessary to ensure quality instruction and to facilitate the creation of online courses.
Recommendation. CPCC should introduce required processes and establish departmental
liaisons to work collaboratively with the eLearning area. Designated distance learning liaisons
shall be provided with compensation reflective of the addition duties that they assume in this
role. This compensation may include stipends, release time, or other budgetary allocations.
Distance Campus. In order to increase the number of fully at a distance offerings, CPCC
should consider other organizational models in higher education including an integrated distance
learning campus. This model is utilized, for example, by Strayer University, the University of
Phoenix, Capella, Duke University and others. This model allows for a closely managed distance
learning process (reflective of the 'Infrastructure' needs).
54
eLearning Advisory Committee: # 5 Strategic Plan
Recommendation. It is the recommendation of this subcommittee that a task force be
formed by the College to further research and explore the viability of forming an integrated
online "Global Campus" or "Virtual Campus". This approach raises unique questions that may
need to be addressed. Considerations for discussion: What are the accreditation considerations?
What is the ESS representation? What are its community responsibilities? Curriculum FTE
generating? Faculty? Administration services?
55
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Learning Management Systems
Erin Reed, Catalina Ramirez, Adam Brooks, Teeku Patel, Vince Osisek, Chris Jolly, Elizabeth
Mitchell, Chris Paytner, Gary Gilbody, Erin Payton
Central Piedmont Community College
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Adam S. Brooks, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College; Catalina Ramirez, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning
Advisory Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community
College (CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed,
Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community
College, 1325 East 7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204.
Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
56
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Abstract
This sub-committee was charged with two main responsibilities: 1.) Evaluating
effectiveness of the current Learning Management Systems (LMSs) at CPCC: Blackboard and
Moodle and 2.) Researching the kind of resources that would need to be in place in case of a
hypothetical migration from Blackboard to Moodle as the primary learning management system
of the College.
Objectives. The following were the objectives set by the task force subcommittee. 1.
Evaluate processes to optimize the use of the LMSs. 2. Elaborate a cost comparison table to
determine the effectiveness of the hypothetical migration. 3. Explore the educational trends of
the evolution of Blackboard and Moodle. 4. Research and Evaluate the status of schools from the
NC System that have migrated to Moodle
Keywords: lms, learning management systems, cms, course management systems,
blackboard, moodle, education, distance education, electronic learning, elearning, e-learning,
online learning, online education, online teaching, online courses, online college, community
college online, cpcc
57
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Introduction
Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) is a regional leader in workforce
development. CPCC provides curriculum courses and training through traditional on-campus
delivery as well as a large and growing offering of distance learning options. CPCC has more
than nineteen thousand online students and offers one complete degree as well as seven
certificates that can be complete online. Additionally, many traditional on-campus courses have
web-enhanced or hybridized their delivery to include online options.
Table 1.1 Distance Learning Enrollment by Delivery Method
Table 1.2 Course Sections by Distance Learning Delivery Methods
58
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Learning Systems. CPCC provides two platforms for development and delivery of online
distance learning courses. These platforms are the commercially licensed system "Blackboard"
and the open source project "Moodle."
Blackboard. The Blackboard learning management system (LMS) was introduced at
CPCC under the product name "Courseinfo" in 1999. At this time, the state had not yet adopted
standards for online instructional systems. The selection of "Courseinfo" was made in
collaboration with College leaders, instructors, and ITS. Blackboard, Inc., the creator and
vendors of this product, was and remains a leader in online instructional delivery systems.
Blackboard is CPCC's primary online course delivery platform. Given the large number of
Blackboard users, CPCC has adopted an "Enterprise" version of the platform which allows the
integration with Datatel. This integration has allowed many LMS-related processes, including
course creation and student enrollment, to be automated. An online course area (often referred to
as a "semester shell") is automatically created in Blackboard for all courses at CPCC, distance
learning and traditional delivery alike. Face-to-face instructors have the option to use the
semester shell to enhanced their classroom experience. The North Carolina Community College
System Office (NCCS) currently funds Blackboard Enterprise software to 52 colleges across
North Carolina.
Moodle. The Moodle course management system (CMS) was introduced at CPCC in
2004. Moodle was introduced to provide faculty with an alternative to Blackboard. Additionally,
during a time when CPCC's Blackboard system performance was negatively impacted by an
upgrade, the Moodle option allowed for instructors and courses to adapt as needed to these
59
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
unexpected temporary challenges. Moodle is considered the institution's secondary online course
delivery platform. Online course areas (often referred to as a "shell") are created upon request of
the instructor. Currently, only four community colleges in North Carolina use Moodle
exclusively to delivery online courses, however, other community colleges and universities in the
region have begun to explore migration options. Approximately ten percent of CPCC's online
courses are managed through Moodle.
Moodle Trends. The North Carolina State Board of Community Colleges requested a
detailed report on the viability of an open source learning system for colleges in North Carolina.
In response to this request, a great deal of open source research was done by the state in
partnership with the University of North Carolina (UNC). The resulting "The Open Source
Collaborative: Moodle Assessment Report" was released on August of 2009. The report
concluded that Moodle software "has been found to be a viable alternative to Blackboard."
Though this report speaks positively to open source options, the migration from Blackboard to
Moodle or Moodle to other platforms is not seamless, and requires an investment.
Usage Summary. Below is a summary table of usage for CPCC's Blackboard and Moodle
learning systems. Blackboard accounts for
Table 1.3 Blackboard and Moodle Usage at CPCC
Blackboard
Moodle
Total
BbPercent MoodlePercent
Courses
5000
400
5400
92.59%
7.41%
Instructors
1300
400
1700
76.47%
23.53%
Students
30000
5800
35800
83.80%
16.20%
Figure 1.1 Blackboard and Moodle Usage at CPCC
60
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Blackboard to Moodle Migration Option. During sub-committee meetings, the question
was asked if CPCC was in-fact planning to migrate to Moodle from Blackboard. At this time, the
college has not taken a position to pursue a primary system change. This report identifies some
important considerations should a migration to Moodle as the primary LMS/CMS be explored at
CPCC. According to "The Open Source Collaborative: Moodle Assessment Report", a full
course migration "from Blackboard to Moodle is challenging and resource intensive." Below, we
further explore the migration option and needs.
Migration Process. CPCC Instructional Development / eLearning (IDev) has reviewed
the migration processes of several community colleges to gage common practices and costs.
IDev is basing its projections on 8 hours of course conversion development per class.
Additionally, faculty re-training and support must be considered. Furthermore, in order to
establish these costs, IDev has developed a conceptual conversion process that includes our
organization's quality measures.
Figure 2.1 Conceptual CPCC Blackboard to Moodle Migration Process
61
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Cost Projections. Based on typical migration processes, CPCC Instructional Development
has done a generic break-down of costs to fully convert courses from Moodle to Blackboard. The
table below represents time projections in hours and costs (labor per hour) for a single course
migration. The labor rate has been derived from a part-time Instructional Developer I position.
No cost value for faculty time or labor has been included as there is no unified/consistent rate
that can be applied, however, release time or stipends may be appropriate. These projections only
address instructional design, development, training and support costs.
Table 2.1 IDev Blackboard and Moodle Conversion Projections
Service
Hours Rate
Costs
Beginner Moodle training
2
-$34.32 Moodle software overview. Necessary to
(level 1)
$17.16
Notes
provide faculty with a base understanding of
differences between platforms. Aides in
accurate migration of course structure and
teaching styles between platforms. This cost
value reflects the trainer's time to deliver a two
hour session. It does not reflect training
development, preparation, or other related
needs.
62
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Beginner Moodle faculty
2
$0.00
$0
This cost value reflects the faculty's time to
attend this training.
Course migration consultation 2
-
-$34.32 ID consults directly with faculty to review the
$17.16
course and develop a course-specific plan for
migrating. At this time, ID will also look for
improvement opportunities based on QCR
measures.
Course migration consultation 2
$0.00
$0
faculty
This cost value reflects the faculty's time to
attend this meeting.
Course conversion (from Bb to 8
-
-
Instructional Developers process course
Moodle)
$17.16 $137.28 content and migrate elements that can be
reasonably transferred between platforms.
Intermediate Moodle training
3
(level 2)
-
-$51.48 Level 2 Moodle software and instructional
$17.16
method training to focus on classroom
management and assessment techniques. This
training will specifically explore comparative
changes and transitional issues introduced by
platform change. This cost value reflects the
trainer's time to deliver a two hour session. It
does not reflect training development,
preparation, or other related needs.
Intermediate Moodle faculty
3
$0.00
$0
This cost value reflects the faculty's time to
attend this training.
Quality Course Review
10
-
-$171.6 Quality Course Review (QCR) of the migrated
$17.16
course before use / semester deployment to
students. Assumes three reviewers assigned,
coordinated group analysis, and follow-up with
faculty.
Faculty stipend or release
Total:
2
$0.00
$0
To be determined.
$0
Faculty training and development
-$429
Support and instructional design services
-$429
Cumulative total
63
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Figure 3.1 Case Study of Blackboard to Moodle Process at Southeastern Community
College NC.
Diagram 2.1 This reflects a six hour vendor-provided training series with transfer lab time.
SCCNC pursued the conversion of 500 total courses. It should be noted that this training and lab
combination was not itself sufficient and many hours of additional lab support were needed.
Other Considerations. Additional considerations if CPCC were to make a concerted
effort to migrate from Blackboard to Moodle would include the costs of online plagiarism
detection software for all faculty. Currently, Blackboard provides Safeassign tools free of charge
to customers. CPCC may need to evaluate the costs of other systems and their ability to integrate
with Moodle. Additionally, third party assets such as publisher cartridges are commonly used
throughout higher education and very popular among College faculty. Blackboard has a depth of
relationship with publishing companies and incorporates convenient ways to load course content
via cartridges or access keys. This is often not the case with Moodle. Though some publishers do
provide a Moodle option, there is far less availability and/or the process for bringing this content
into Moodle is more cumbersome if at all capable.
64
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Recommendations
Through group meetings and collaboration sessions, our subcommittee has identified
several opportunities for improvement and made recommendations for each. Each of these are
outlined in the documentation below.
Environmental Survey. The subcommittee determined that an environmental scan and
survey of distance learning, including learning systems, that more directly targets the students
and community that CPCC serves should be completed. The goals of this survey process would
include:
1. identifying faculty preferences for the online teaching environment
2. identifying student preferences for online learning environment
3. evaluate the effectiveness of existing learning systems to the needs of our
community
Timeline Considerations. The subcommittee recommends that no significant transitions
or migrations to alternative or secondary LMS/CMS platforms occur before the upcoming SACS
visitation.
Learning Systems. At this time, the subcommitteee does not support the introduction of
additional learning management or course management platforms that would replace Blackboard
or Moodle (e.g. Sakai, Angel, Desire to Learn, etc). As each system that is introduced into the
learning environment incurs costs and requires ongoing support and training, it is the
recommendation of this subcommittee that the College not seek to manage more than two
primary learning systems (Blackboard and Moodle at this time). Furthermore, the subcommittee
recommends that the College become more proactive in promoting best practices, documenting
guidelines, and providing training to educators in pursuance of delivering quality online
instruction.
Assets Management. The subcommittee recommends the formalization of processes
and/or guidelines for the introduction of third party content assets and sub-systems. Common
examples of these third party components include publisher content, cartridges, external services,
and add-ons. The goal in providing these guidelines is to ensure the best possible learning
environment for students. This may be accomplished by testing the function and usability of
assets before they are utilized in a “live” course. In addition, guidelines will allow the instructor,
ID, and ITS awareness of the capabilities and potential issues of the asset.
65
eLearning Advisory Committee #6: Learning Management Systems (LMS)
Table 2.2 Suggested Asset Management Process
Contributors
Process
Faculty; Program;
Is in discussions with publisher regarding
Vendor
books and assets for students.
Faculty; IDev; Vendor IDev provides consultation and review of
Considerations
How is content provided, licensing,
publisher assets with faculty, program, and privacy, costs, etc.
vendor.
IDev
Following the consultation, publisher
Migration of content to LMS/CMS
assets may be loaded into a temporary
online area or master shell for further
testing and review.
Faculty; IDev
Faculty and assigned Insructional
Developer(s) review the content to
ascertain best approach for integration into
online course delivery.
Faculty; IDev
Processes for the use and deployment of
What is the faculty experience and
the assets are developed.
process? What is the student
experience and process?
Faculty; IDev
If faculty and/or program approves of
assets, a master course is prepared for
use in future implementation / publishing to
semester shells.
Faculty; IDev; ITS
As neeed, coordinate meeting with Help
Help Desk
Desk to discuss possible student support
issues.
IDev
As needed, provide training for deployment To faculty using the tool / content.
process.
IDev; Faculty;
Project completion and evaluation
Program
meeting.
To conclude and evaluate experience.
66
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Collaboration
Erin Reed, Adam Brooks, Catalina Ramirez, Vince Osisek, Gary Gilbody, Erin Payton, Kristofer
Motto
Central Piedmont Community College
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Adam S. Brooks, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning
Advisory Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community
College (CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed,
Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community
College, 1325 East 7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204. Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
67
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
Abstract
This sub-committee of the CPCC eLearning Advisory Committee (eLAC) is charged with
addressing the core question of "How do we improve communication and collaboration with
influencers of distance learning at Central Piedmont Community College?" Furthermore, what
opportunities exist to position CPCC as a leader in distance learning, online training, online
degrees, online certificates, and online diplomas to our community? In our region?
Keywords: elearning collaboration, elearning communication, education, distance
education, electronic learning, elearning, e-learning, online learning, online education, online
teaching, online courses, online college, community college online, cpcc
68
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
Introduction
Mission. In our first subcommittee meeting, the mission of this group was defined as; 1.
To develop a process for identifying, introducing, and communicating new methods including
tools and services. 2. To identify the participants to this process and who owns aspects of the
process. 3. To identify communication channels to monitor including communities, colleges,
organizations, and market influencers.
Through group meetings and collaboration sessions, our subcommittee has identified
several opportunities for improvement and made recommendations for each. These opportunities
and recommendations are outlined below.
Participants. The following participants of the eLearning process have been identified
and presented below and include students, educators, support providers, and resources.
Communication channels, opportunities, and recommendations for each are included.
Students. What do students want? The subcommittee contributors believe that students
must be included in some discussions related to distance learning delivery. We need their
perspective. The institution and the learning environment benefit from their formal
representation. Communication channels with students at the College were identified and include
official student email, newsletters, Internet web sites, social media, Student Life, Student
Government Association(SGA), through collaborations with the College Senate Student Welfare
Committee, through student clubs and organizations represented at CPCC. According to the
College's Student Life web site, "CPCC has over 40 registered student clubs & organizations"
that could serve as channels for student involvement. Additionally, incorporating the use of
Internet communication options and social media trends will prove external outreach
opportunities. Furthermore, the concept of a distance learning student association was discussed
and it is the recommendation of this subcommittee that it should be further explored. What
interest level exists with students?
Educators. Opportunities with and communication channels to educators at the College
including faculty, staff, and administration, were identified and include the CPCC eLearning
Community, College Senate, Learning Council, and through Microsoft Outlook software.
eLearning Community. The eLearning Community (eLC) is an online space established in
Moodle to communicate and discuss issues related to eLearning and instructional design. The
eLC includes online discussion boards / forums, support resources, and facilitates a monthly
69
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
electronic newsletter distributed via email. We believe that increased use of this tool will benefit
communication and collaboration on distance learning issues as well as support a culture of
sharing. It is the recommendation of this subcommittee that development of the CPCC eLearning
Community resource continue toward the goal of providing an active, collaborative, and
interactive virtual community option for distance educators at the College.
College Senate. CPCC's College Senate is a representative body for full-time Faculty and
Professional Staff. According to its web site, its purpose is to "provide Faculty and Professional
Staff an avenue to discuss, promote, voice concern, and bring forth positive recommendations to
make Central Piedmont Community College a better place for all concerned." The subcommittee
feels that partnering with Senate on matters impacting distance learning instruction only makes
sense. Furthermore, the concept of an eLearning committee within College Senate was
discussed and it is the recommendation of this subcommittee that it should be further explored
and perhaps proposed to next year's Senate body.
Learning Council. Learning Council, as as representative body of deans and instructional
administration at CPCC, has been identified as an opportunity / channel of support and
collaboration for the College's distance learning environment.
Outlook. It was noted by the subcommittee that Microsoft Outlook is a primary and
official communication tool of CPCC educators. The use and application of this tool is a daily
task that is integrated into the day-to-day activities of our College employees. How can we use
this tool more effectively? Certainly, emails are a reasonable way to communicate text with
many people at one time. It does have limitations, however, and does not facilitate real-time
discussions, chat, voice, video, or collaboration. There are options that enhance the
communication and collaborative experiences in Outlook and they should be further explored.
Additionally, SharePoint team services and other integrated collaboration options are emerging
to empower our community or educators.
For example enhancements, consider that the College has been pilot testing MS Office
Communicator, an instant messaging client with text chat and audio/video options, which will
enhance communication options. Also, opportunities exist for Sharepoint services and Google
Apps to be expanded and integrated into institutional work flows.
Support. The primary support and services areas for distance education and eLearning
initiatives at CPCC were identified as Instructional Development / eLearning and ITS.
70
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
Instructional Development. The Instructional Development / eLearning area of the college
provides instructional design services, support, and training for educators at CPCC.
Communication channels to Instructional Development / eLearning were identified as through
the eLearning Community, the eLearning Faculty Support Hotline.
ITS. CPCC Information Technology Services provides service to the College through the
implementation, advancement, and support of technology. Regarding distance learning, ITS
supports the implementation and uptime of hardware and software systems needed for College
operations.
Figure 1. Internal Channels and Opportunities
External. External channels include communities, colleges, organizations, and market
influencers. This subcommittee has identified colleges and universities, providers, and
organizations to monitor. Innovative colleges and universities that are impacting distance
education regionally and internationally. State and regional influences include the UNC system
and institutions within or near Mecklenburg county. Additionally, for-profit institutions such as
the University of Phoenix and Capella are setting trends in providing options to online learners.
71
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
Providers of services, content, and tools incorporated into the distance learning mix are hugely
influential and ever-changing. Professional organizations and accrediting bodies are closely
reviewing and pushing for innovation and standards in online teaching and learning.
Figure 2. External Channels and Opportunities
Process. Our subcommittee set out to develop a process for identifying, introducing, and
communicating new methods including tools and services. This proposed process and
considerations for managing new methods is based on the traditional systematic decision-making
/ problem-solving process. Additionally, each of the players for each step in this process are
presented as well.
Figure 3. Systematic Decision-Making Process Steps and Considerations
72
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
Distance Campus. In order to increase the number of fully at a distance offerings, CPCC
should consider other organizational models in higher education including an integrated distance
learning campus. This model is utilized, for example, by Strayer University, the University of
Phoenix, Capella, Rio Salado, Duke University and others. This model allows for a closely
managed distance learning process (reflective of the 'Infrastructure' needs).
Recommendation. It is the recommendation of this subcommittee that a task force be
formed by the College to further research and explore the viability of forming an integrated
online "Global Campus" or "Virtual Campus". This approach raises unique questions that may
need to be addressed. For example -- What are the accreditation considerations? What is the ESS
representation? What are its community responsibilities? Curriculum FTE generating? Faculty?
Administration services?
73
eLearning Advisory Committee: #7 Collaboration
74
eLearning Advisory Committee: Office Hours
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on Office Hours
Erin Reed, Adam Brooks, Teeku Patel, Tracie Clark, Chris Jolly, Brenda Armentrout, Hugh
Dussek, William Kennedy, Chris Paynter, Mike McGee, Gary Gilbody, Elizabeth Mills
Central Piedmont Community College
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Adam S. Brooks, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning
Advisory Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community
College (CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed,
Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community
College, 1325 East 7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204.
Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
75
eLearning Advisory Committee: Office Hours
Abstract
This sub-committee of the CPCC eLearning Advisory Committee (eLAC) is charged with
addressing questions regarding virtual office hours for instructors who are teaching distance
learning courses through Central Piedmont Community College. What is the position of the
College to provide opportunities for virtual faculty office hours? Do we provide equitable
practices that support the needs of our students and the organization?
Keywords: office hours, faculty office hours, elearning office hours, virtual office hours,
distance learning office hours, online office hours, virtual office, distance education, electronic
learning, elearning, e-learning, online learning, online education, online teaching, online
courses, online college, community college online, cpcc
76
eLearning Advisory Committee: Office Hours
Introduction
Through group meetings and collaboration sessions, our subcommittee has identified
several opportunities for improvement and made recommendations for each. Each of these are
outlined in the documentation below.
Opportunities and Recommendations
Office Hours. Office hours benefit the College environment in a positive way through
direct support of our students, community involvement, mentoring opportunities, and service to
the College.
"Each full-time teaching faculty member has responsibilities to serve students, the
division and the College by providing instruction, assisting students, and engaging in
professional growth/service and college/community service." Policy 4.12, section A, part
1
Recommendation. No related recommendations at this time.
Physical Presence. Meeting every professional obligation to the College organization
cannot be accomplished virtually. As professionals, an appropriate level of physical presence is
required of full-time faculty.
Recommendation. This subcommittee recommends requiring an appropriate level of
physical on-campus presence of all full-time faculty.
Existing Policy. At this time, the subcommittee believes that the current policy (4.12) is
sufficient enough to allow divisions to address the unique needs of distance education and online
teaching on a case-by-case basis.
"When the instructor cannot meet the scheduled hours, the instructor should notify the
division director or secretary as soon as possible and post appropriate notice." Policy
4.12, section A, part 3d
77
eLearning Advisory Committee: Office Hours
Recommendation. No changes recommended at this time.
Fully at a Distance Faculty. There has been a great deal of discussion in this
subcommittee on the issue of full-time faculty that teach loads that are completely online at a
distance. Revisiting the prior point, this subcommittee feels that the current policy (4.12) is
sufficient to support the physical presence requirements.
"Each teaching faculty member will schedule and maintain office hours in appropriate
locations (e.g., office, lab, studio)."
Recommendation. At this time, the subcommittee does not support a different contract for
full-time distance learning faculty. If under extenuating circumstances in which the full-time
faculty is unable to meet the physical presence requirements of policy 4.12, the division director
may make this decision with approval of the area dean.
78
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
eLearning Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report - Faculty Training
Erin Reed, Lane Grann-Stahl, Gary Gibody, William Kennedy, Hugh Dussek, Chris Jolly,
Brenda Armentrout, Anver Classens , Chris Paynter, Elizabeth Mills, Carolyn Jacobs, Eleanor
Henry, Tom Heffner, Catalina Ramirez, Teeku Patel
Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC)
Author Note
Erin Reed, Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont
Community College; Lane Grann-Stahl, Instructional Development, Central Piedmont
Community College. This research was completed as a collaborative initiative for the eLearning
Advisory Committee formed during the Spring term of 2010 at Central Piedmont Community
College (CPCC). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erin Reed,
Director of Distance Education Development & Delivery, Central Piedmont Community
College, 1325 East 7th Street, Charlotte, NC 28204. Email: erin.reed@cpcc.edu
79
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
Abstract
This elearning Advisory subcommittee considered whether training should be required
before an instructor is permitted to teach distance courses for the first time at CPCC. The
subcommittee's recommendation is an unqualified "Yes." The subcommittee believes that the
recommended required training (see Recommendation One) is reasonable and consistent with
today's best practices in elearning and supports the College's commitment to quality. Five
related recommendations are also proposed that will provide additional benefit to students,
instructors, academic divisions, and the College in general.
Keywords: education, distance education, electronic learning, elearning, e-learning, online
learning, online education, online teaching, online courses, online college, community college
online, cpcc, community college
80
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
Introduction
During several meetings during the spring term 2010, this subcommittee researched the practice
of requiring instructors to have training prior to teaching distance courses for the first time, as
well as other ways to provide support for new distance faculty that would help them--and their
students--be successful. There is precedence for requiring training: "fully half (53 percent) [of
the 182 participating institutions] have mandatory training requirements for faculty who teach in
an online program." [Campus Computing 2009] In addition, everyone on the subcommittee
provided anecdotal evidence of the need for required training and support for new distance
faculty from a variety of disciplines that included communicaton, visual arts, early childhood
education, dental hygiene, English, applied technologies, criminal justice, and the behavioral
sciences. There was strong agreement that teaching at a distance is different from teaching in the
classroom [Watwood 2008], and that timely preparation in using the learning management
system tools at CPCC, i.e., Blackboard or Moodle, as well as current best practices in online
pedagogy are both necessary to successfully teach at a distance [Kosak 2004].
Several subcommittee members currently teach distance courses, and their experiences as brand
new online instructors--both good and bad--are reflected in the subcommittee's recommendations
for requiring prior training for new distance faculty as well as for providing additional,
continuing support. Many subcommittee members have completed online graduate programs
and their experiences as online students--or as the parents of online students--provided a valuable
student perspective that supports adequate and timely preparation of distance faculty as a
cornerstone of student success. "It is unfair to both students and to faculty for faculty to be
plunged into an online course without adequate and appropriate knowledge of how to make the
best use of that modality in teaching." [James 2010]
81
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
Final Recommendations
Recommendation One - Training should be required for all faculty (full-time and part-time)
prior to teaching at a distance for the first time, i.e., teaching an IN, HY, or TW course. In
extreme, last-minute situations, the training should be completed by the instructor by the end
of the fourth week of the semester.
The recommended three-part training will be 9 hours in length and combine
skillbuilding with Blackboard or Moodle tools as well as online pedagogy:
3 hrs. - Introduction to Teaching Online with [Blackboard or Moodle]
3 hrs. - Blackboard or Moodle Grade Center and Assessment
3 hrs. - Online Pedagogy [LMS* neutral]
The training will be offered in a fully-online as well as hybrid format (the
percentage of time in-person and online yet to be determined).
The specific topics in this training will be identified by eLearning.
*LMS: learning management system
Recommendation Two - All new distance faculty will be assigned a supportive faculty
member (suggested title: "online lead") who will be enrolled in the instructor's online course and
be available for guidance and encouragement throughout the semester and to model quality
distance instructional practices.
Recommendation Three - A stipend or reassigned time will be provided for distance course
development, i.e., at least for the first time a course was developed for distance delivery, if not
for subsequent versions developed by other instructors.
Recommendation Four - A strategy for extreme, last-minute situations is highly
recommended to divisions to provide as much support as possible for new distance instructors
assigned at the last minute. Division directors or chairs shall:
1. Provide the new distance instructor with quality course content, i.e., an approved
division master whenever possible or, at minimum, a copy of a colleague's quality-
82
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
certified course approved by the division director.
2. Assign them a supportive distance instructor from their division--an "online lead"-preferably one who has taught or is teaching the same distance course.
3. Request that an elearning Instructional Developer be assigned to this new distance
instructor (email idev@cpcc.edu) who will then:
- assist the instructor with "just in time" training and support
- inform the instructor of all of the online resources that are available
- inform the instructor of all relevant in-person training available before the
semester begins
- enroll the "online lead" (supportive instructor) into the new instructor's distance
course
NOTE: it is still expected that the instructor will complete the required training by the
end of the fourth week of the term (see Recommendation One) .
Strongly recommend that if criteria 1., 2., and 3. can't be met, that it is in the best
interests of the instructor, the students, and the College, that the distance section should
be canceled.
Recommendation Five - A quality course-reviewed division master will be identified for all
distance classes in the division, periodically reviewed to maintain quality, and used by new
distance instructors. It is also recommended that a division elearning liaison oversee the
division master process and be given reassigned time or a stipend as dertermined by the division
director.
Recommendation Six - A structured learning path will be created for distance instructors
to achieve an advanced level of training and recognition with an emphasis on online
pedagogy, best practices in distance instruction, specific needs within the academic divisions,
and emerging distance learning technologies.
Summary
83
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
In summary, the subcommittee believes that its recommendations are reasonable, if not modest;
consistent with today's best practices in elearning; and supportive of the College's commitment to
quality.
84
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
References
Campus Computing. (2009, November). The 2009 Campus Computing Survey (4 Nov 2009).
Abstract retrieved from http://www.campuscomputing.net/2009-campus-computing-survey
Marek, K. (2010, January). Learning to teach online: Creating a culture of support for faculty.
Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 50(4). Retrieved from
http://jelis.org/2009-volume-50/learning-to-teach-online-creating-a-culture-of-support-forfaculty-by-kate-marek/
James, S. G., Ph.D., & Binder, D. A., MBA (Eds.). (2010). Online faculty as adult learners Faculty development that works. Retrieved from submissions to the 16th Annual Sloan-C
International Conference on Online Learning: The Power of Online Learning, Nov. 3-5, 2010
website: http://www.ce.ucf.edu/asp/aln/cfp/FileRepository/Presentation/1120130240917.doc
Kosak, L., Manning, D., Dobson, E., Rogerson, L., Cotnam, S., Colaric, S., & McFadden, C.
(2004, Fall). Ready to teach online? Perspectives of faculty in the University of North Carolina
System . Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VII(III). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall73/kosak73.html
Watwood, B., Nugent, J., & Deihl, W. (2008). Building from content to community:
[Re]thinking the transition to online teaching and learning, a CTE white paper. Retrieved from
Center for Teaching Excellence, Online Teaching and Learning Resource guide, Virginia
Commonwealth University website: http://www.vcu.edu/cte/pdfs/
OnlineTeachingWhitePaper.pdf
85
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
Thank you to all of the eLearning Advisory Members & the eLearning Team for their hard
work and excellent ideas:
Rebecca
Fernandez
Adult ESL
Cathey
Flores
Health Sciences
Anne
McIntosh
Arts and Communication
Brenda
Armentrout
Arts and Communication
Tracie
Clark
Arts and Communication
Anver
Classens
Applied Technologies
Rick
Coulter
Behavioral and Social Sciences
Brantlee
Drake
Student Life
Hugh
Dussek
Behavioral and Social Sciences
Terence
Fagan
Engineering Technologies
Gary
Gilbody
Information Technology
Maha
Gingrich
Community Relations and Marketing Services
Chris
Hailey
Public Safety&
Tom
Heffner
Early Childhood Development
Carolyn
Henry
Health Sciences
Eleanor
Jacobs
Arts and Communication
Sonya "Rudy"
Johnson
Mathematics
Chris
Jolly
Nursing and Human Services
William "Bill"
Kennedy
Public Safety
Jill
Lutz
Cooperative Education/Workbased learning
Mike
McGee
Information Technology
Elizabeth
Mills
English, Reading, and Humanities
Elizabeth
Mitchell
Sciences
Kris
Motto
ITS-Learning Technology Services
Vince
Osisek
CCE Computer Training
Chris
Paytner
Geomatics and Sustainability
Erin
Payton
Library
Jeff
Scaggs
Behavioral and Social Sciences
Keith
Shannon
Professional Careers
Felesia
Stukes
Information Technology
Melissa
Vrana
Administration - Central Campus
86
eLearning Advisory Committee: Faculty Training
eLearning Team
Erin Reed, Director
Adam Brooks, Instructional Developer
Lane Grann-Stahl, Instructional Developer
Jean Hardy, Instructional Developer
Teeku Patel, Instructional Developer
Catalina Ramirez, Instructional Developer
87