Distance Education Committee
Annual Report 2005-2006
May 31, 2006
The Distance
Education Committee of the Academic Senate is a joint committee comprised of committed, active, regularly
attending members (see below). This year
has been a challenging transition year, during which the committee’s successes
can partially be measured by the Objectives report outlined below, and more
fully appreciated by acknowledging the intangible but important progress the
committee has made in understanding its mission, providing a forum for open
discussion, and balancing the achievement of tangible objectives with nurturing
evolving educational philosophies in a rapidly changing technological
environment.
Members
Teri Bernstein, Chair
Julie Yarrish, Vice-Chair, Spring semester (admin)
Kiersten Elliott, Vice-Chair, Fall semester (admin)
Mona Martin (admin)
Marilyn Adler
Fariba Bolandhemat
Alan Buckley
Ellen Cutler
Dana Del George
Maria Erickson
Diane Gross
Michael Gustin
Peggy Kravitz
Laura Manson
Judith Remmes
Claudia Szekely
Odemaris Valdivia
Christine Miller (classified)
Waleed Nasr (classified)
Lee Peterson (classified)
Marilyn Simons (classified)
Student representative (open)
members unable to attend during Spring semester: Marilyn Adler (sabbatical),
and Diane Gross (class conflict); other members with temporary conflicts stayed
active through email or sub-committee work.
Meetings: The Distance Education (DE) Committee’s regular meeting
times this year were alternate Tuesdays in the Library conference room,
Distance Education Committee of the SMC
Academic Senate
Objectives 2005-2006:
1.
Collaborate with Admissions/Enrollment to solve existing problems with
the enrollment and records interface with Distance Education students and
faculty.
Status:
Revised to: Receive updates from
Admissions and Enrollment in advance of any changes to the online interface.
Comment:
this objective was set in reaction to problems that had occurred in prior years,
but were, for the most part, resolved.
Revised objective is more in line with the scope of the committee.
Disposition:
resolved.
2. Draft
Administrative Regulations regarding Distance Education, and submit to Senate
for approval.
Status: An eight page draft was developed, and has
been edited considerably, with mutual understanding on many points. At the committee’s direction, Mona Martin and
Teri Bernstein have been charged with editing the draft over the summer to
bring it to the committee in form that will be close to a finalized
document. Certain segments that overlap
Curriculum responsibilities will be referenced in the document; Curriculum is
in the process of revising its Distance Education section and we are engaged in
an open dialogue with them; two DE members participate in a Curriculum
subcommittee on this.
Comment:
This has been an important but challenging vehicle that has helped the
committee shape, in a grounded way, its scope.
Additionally this project has provided a forum to discuss the boundaries
between administrative functions and Senate committee functions.
Disposition: Agendize as a priority for Fall 2006.
3 Survey faculty regarding mentoring of new
online faculty and develop a plan to formalize the process.
Status: Regarding Surveying
faculty: not yet done, but Committee did discuss some questions to ask in
the future: How did you learn? How can we
institutionalize this learning process?
How much training did you get?
Brainstorming ideas on this issue included making a DVD to communicate
experiences, or using CCConfer. A
graduate research survey in which many DE faculty
across the state participated addressed some of the mentoring and training
issues underlying this objective. One survey participant, Judith Remmes, distributed
the results to committee members after the last meeting, so a discussion is
pending.
Regarding mentoring: a Summer Mentoring Project materialized during May. Jeff
Shimizu contacted Julie Yarrish about recruiting DE faculty to mentor Nursing faculty
on campus in the Faculty media room for five hours per week each week during
summer intersession for a stipend amounting to about $50 per hour. Although
these funds were available only because of a grant, the situation presents an
opportunity to measure the successes and learn from the participants’
experiences—as mentees, mentors, and administrators.
Comment:
Progress in this area was not initiated
by the committee, but, as noted above, both the outside survey and the
mentoring project present opportunities.
Since mentoring is related to faculty training, we still have to
exercise care, consciousness and transparency as to who is responsible for what aspects of
training, and making sure that the Faculty Association is involved when
compensation issues arise.
Disposition: Surveying SMC faculty is a broader issue than
gathering information on this one issue, so it is a separate function, and can
be an important way to assess faculty needs.
I will try to inspire myself and the committee to undertake the survey aspect
of this objective for 2006-07, with a broader purview, building on the work
begun by the DE committee in 2002-2003.
With respect to the Summer Mentoring
Project, I, as committee chair, will request a report from Julie and/or Jeff, in
conjunction with the participating faculty, to be given at a DE meeting in the
fall. It will then be up to the
committee to incorporate other research around the topic of mentoring and
training, and develop an objective or plan of action if there are interested individuals—on
or off the committee-- to pursue this.
4. Establish a monthly
technical-issues subcommittee open to all faculty using online
instruction, to discuss and solve technical problems, conducting follow-up with
the provider as needed.
Status: One off-calendar meeting held; one
meeting held with e-college during the regular meeting time.
Comment:
Follow-up with e-college is time-consuming but worth it. Responsibility for
this follow up needs to be assigned by the committee on a shared basis, or
assigned to staff by the administrator in order to be more timely and effective
(Chair cannot do it all).
The session with e-college by phone
during the committee meeting time was very successful; perhaps the
technological component of this could be expanded so more faculty could
participate.
Alternative time slots have not been
successful in the past, but maybe that is only because we have not picked the
right time, or accommodated the time slot with a functional remote way to
participate.
Disposition: This objective as written is too ambitious,
but the objective of providing a forum for discussion of technical problems is
one embraced by committee members. Committee is participating in an opening-day
Salon in partial fulfillment of the underlying objective. Committee will probably discuss how to rework
this objective to continue it in substance for 2006-07.
5. Define procedures and standards for peer
evaluations of online faculty
Status: Postponed.
Comment:
This objective overlaps with Faculty association responsibilities. The technical issues involved in setting this
up, once the contractual and philosophical issues are resolved could be
addressed by classified staff. This
might be a long term goal.
A first step toward achieving progress
on this issue might be developing a “best practices” guide that could be
available on the DE website…
Disposition: Discuss as a possible issue to consider for
next year’s Objectives list; possibly pose it as a Salon topic for opening day
or a future brainstorming session.
6.
Collaborate with campus community to develop a process by which the
Distance Education Committee is informed of all changes related to distance
education.
Status:
We are very involved with Curriculum as we revise our Administrative
Regulations and as they revise their Distance Education procedures. The DE chair is assigned to both the
Information Services Committee and the Technology Planning subcommittee of
DPAC. These relationships provide avenues for the exchange of information.
Comment:
Regular reports during committee meetings from administrators, and an annual
visit from the VP of Academic Affairs could create a pattern of shared
communication that would enhance this process directly with the committee
members.
As the DE function grows in importance with respect to maintaining and
improving our FTEs, collaboration to enhance communication is an important part
of Strategic Planning..
Disposition: Suggest that Committee adopt this as a
continuing objective for 2006-07.
Unranked objectives:
--Review Computer Use
Policy article of the contract prior to ratification and discuss with
appropriate Faculty Association personnel.
Status:
What contract?
Comment:
We have not taken any action on this item and no committee member has pushed
for this.
Disposition: Remove from list as separate objective, and
deal with as a part of the “collaboration” objective as the need arises.
--Make a presentation
to the Board of Trustees regarding Distance Education programs and progress.
Status:
Revised, re-understood, and pending further discussion
Comment:
This objective was understood by many of the faculty on the committee to mean
one thing, and by the administrators on the committee to mean something
else. (I am not sure about how the
classified members may have understood it).
“Presentation to the Board of Trustees” was understood by the administrators to
mean a written (not public) report, satisfying the Chancellor’s office
requirement regarding “District responsibilities.”
Many faculty (including the Chair)
understood “Presentation to the Board of Trustees” to mean a report made by the
whole committee at a public meeting of the Board of Trustees, incorporating
much of the data required by the Chancellor’s office, but serving a public
relations function for DE.
The committee deferred to the wishes of
the Director of Online Services. No
presentation to the Board is currently planned.
The Committee will do some public outreach instead by participating as
presenters at the opening day break-out sessions.
Disposition: a presentation to the Board at a public Board
meeting is possible and maybe even desirable at a future time, but perhaps not
in conjunction with any administrative function. Committee will have to discuss
this as a possible objective for 2006-07 or later.
--Improve
the Watercooler or propose another communication tool to bring more information
to more Distance Education instructors.
Status:
Faculty do not use the Watercooler. Chair does not use the Watercooler to post
information.
Comment:
The Watercooler has not been tried as a repository of minutes or agendas or
other documents as a way to entice faculty to visit this potentially valuable
way of delivering information.
One potential issue: e-college
personnel have 100% access to all of this information and that may be a reason
that faculty find it difficult to utilize it fully.
The Academic Senate website may be a
better way to gather and promulgate information.
Public folders can be privatized for
members-only as another solution to the issue of information distribution.
Disposition: Let committee decide at the beginning of Fall how to pursue the issue of dissemination of
information.
--Complete the
evaluation of the WebCT
Status:
Several actions were taken in pursuit of
this objective. Several faculty formed a cohort to evaluate the WebCT VISTA platform
in a special contract during Summer 2005.
Other faculty investigated Moodle, Desire2Learn and other platforms on a more
informal basis. In addition, Julie
unearthed Edutools as a tool to compare platforms, and Teri set up a
rudimentary spreadsheet to use as a way to discuss platform attributes, but
several committee members wanted a more complex way of evaluating and rating
the attributes on a scale of desirability or necessity.
Comment:
Since the issue of other platforms is always looming, especially since
individual faculty get jazzed about certain possibilities, a procedure for
evaluation would be helpful. On the
other hand, the development of the Nursing curriculum, which represents a major
effort to get it up and running in e-college presents
a hurdle to changing platforms. In
addition, testing of other platforms revealed that issues with the server,
helpdesk, and interface with ISIS, in addition to cost issues, would be outside
the purview of DE committee input—these are IT or administration issues. Nevertheless, DE faculty do
not want to be in a position again where they have no input into platform
decision-making.
Current contract with e-college expires in June 2008.
Disposition: Fariba Bolandhemat is willing to develop a
basic framework for platform evaluation over the summer. Committee can then decide how to proceed.
Additional accomplishments, outside
of stated objectives:
1.
2. Established
a membership roster, so former problems about “who is on the committee” were no
longer an issue.
3. Began a discussion of the
responsibilities of faculty and administration with respect to “best practices.”
4. Found common ground in the enthusiasm shared for creating a “salon”
environment of shared experiences and ideas.
5. Expanded
enrollment by over 35%, in spite of administrative reorganization (see
below)
6. Submitted two proposals for break-out
sessions for opening day, August 2006, relating to Distance Education and the
theme of Strategic Planning.
We appointed committee members to coordinate each of these breakout
sessions, and are following up with Professional Development committee members
7. Shared a variety of
informative documents that will help guide and broaden our discussion of
pedagogy and educational philosophy, including a document that provides a
template for accreditation standards
for distance education programs.
8. Identified topics that may need
additional attention (will be considered as we develop the 2006-2007 objectives):
--institutional research needs, including resources outside of those currently
provided;
--a possible subcommittee to explore grant-writing;
--web site clean-up, correction of links, re-visioning;
--improvement in procedure for posting minutes and agendas to the Web (Chair
dropped the ball this year; additional committee members could be appointed to
pick up the slack)
--possible on-line handbook of online resources for course development, etc
--possible newsletter (occasional)
--how to include more DE faculty in two-way information dissemination
--cyber counseling, cyber tutoring and other student service issues cannot be
jettisoned if we are to maintain academic integrity (a parallel program to our
onground offering)
Administrative reorganization and
enrollment increases affecting Distance Education and this committee:
The original administrator in charge of distance education, Winniphred
Stone, resigned just before the start of Fall semester. The Board opted not to fill that position, and
reduced the number of administrators in this area from two to one by creating a
new position, Director of Online Services, and eliminating the position of
Project Manager.
During this period of reduced administrative support and no new classified
hires, distance education enrollment has grown over 35%:
2004-05: 8,036 e-college seats plus 46
off-platform classes;
2005-06: 10,758 e-college seats plus off-platform
classes (not yet fully tallied).
This could not have been accomplished without the continuity provided in
administration by Julie Yarrish (the former Project Manager now in the Director
position) and her assistant, Marilyn Simons, as well as continuity in
classified support provided by Waleed Nasr and Christine Miller. In addition, faculty have mentored new faculty
and have provided levels of support at the department level that have not yet
been fully documented.
Further stretching the resources of the Distance Education personnel has been a
contract, initiated by the former administrator, to bring Nursing classes
online. Completion of this project will
require long-term efforts from administration, classified and faculty working
together.
Other challenges:
--maintaining currency with technological developments; departments not already
on board have a steeper learning curve as the possibilities expand
--compliance with section 508 regulations, since accessiblility software does
not always keep pace with new technologies (accessibility of online content
items, particularly multi media)
--supervision of faculty teaching from remote locations
--getting the SMC community to understand the strengths and challenges of a
Distance Education offering, and ensuring that the Distance Education impact on
the fulfillment of our mission is understood and discussed.
--maintaining or obtaining adequate or abundant financial support
in a period of budget constraints.
Respectfully
submitted,
Teri Bernstein, DE Chair