Online Education Initiative Steering Committee Meeting Friday December 11, 2015 Zoom Online Meeting

Transcription

1 Online Education Initiative Steering Committee Meeting Friday December 11, 2015 Zoom Online Meeting Voting Members: Arnita Porter, Christina Gold, Cynthia Alexander, Dan Crump, Dave Stephens, Fabiola Torres, Greg Beyrer, Joe Perret, John Freitas, Katie Miller, Kelly Fowler, Lisa Beach, Lisa Wang, and Ray Sanchez, Non-voting Attendees: Amy Carbonaro, Barbara Illowsky, Bonnie Peters, Carol Lashman, Gary Bird, Jayme Johnson, Joe Moreau, John Makevich, John Sills, Jory Hadsell, Pat James, and Steve Klein Welcome and Attendance: Fabiola opened the meeting at 9:33 am and welcomed everyone. John Makevich has accepted a position at his former college, so he will need to step down from his current position on the management team. He expressed his appreciation for being able to be part of this project and is sorry to be saying goodbye. Committee members thanked him for his service and wished him well. Approval of Minutes: There were no corrections or additions to the minutes for November 13, Greg Beyrer moved to approve the minutes and Cynthia Alexander seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by the committee. OEI Update: Pat James thanked John Makevich for all of his work with the OEI; he will be missed on the management team. She also wished him well in the Doctoral Program he has been accepted into. Michelle Pilati was not able to be on the call today; she is at a C-ID meeting. On her behalf Pat reported that the next Train the Trainers course on How to Teach in Canvas will be at Rio Hondo on January 7 th, and Applying the Course Design Rubric will be on the 6th. Anyone who is interested should Michelle. The team is encouraging people in the southern part of the state to come to one or both of the trainings. There have now been five or six of each of those two trainings offered. Jory reported that they are working with Turnitin to finalize a short term agreement to carry the project through the spring with plagiarism detection services, while at the same time working on a long term agreement. The old negotiated agreement did not have the best terms for the CCC, and Turnitin did not agree to allow the CCC to use the terms of the old CSU agreement. New legislation goes into effect on January 1 st allowing each of the systems to piggyback on existing competitively bid contracts, but the vendor has to agree to it. Since the CCLC agreement and the CSU agreement both expire this year, we are working to gently apply pressure for a more favorable joint agreement. Both CSU and Turnitin are interested in having a joint agreement; it saves Turnitin money to have fewer entities to invoice. Additionally, Turnitin has provided assurances that it is interested in working out the details for that interim agreement for the spring. The second full agenda Consortium meeting will be happening after the OEI meeting today. There have been some website changes, and Jayme is working on accessibility issues, including buying a plugin for the banner. Next week the team hopes to transition over from the old website to the new one. Pat expressed her great thanks to Carol Lashman for all of her work and time spent going over details, editing, and re-editing the site. Barbara Illowsky suggested adding a page for Online Education Resources (OER), and Pat thought that would be a great idea. Online Education Initiative Zoom Online December 11, 2015 Page 1

2 Pat encouraged members to let the team know through comments on Basecamp if there are other items that should be added to the informational website; it is not finished and certainly not set in stone. At this point information for the pilots is being put out through Basecamp so that multiple log-ins are not required, but that will likely change as OEI moves through the Exchange in the fall and results are posted there. John Freitas commented that on the governance page related to the Steering Committee, it should be stated that it is a Chancellor s Office advisory body to the OEI project. Pat asked him to send the language so that the team can put it up. The technology for the Exchange mechanism is moving along. The sprint meetings get all of the technicians together and allow them and the project to take stock and get feedback. The interface that has been built to input information and for students to see things is starting to come alive; the development team is listening to feedback and being responsive to what is asked for. The first version will not be everything that will eventually be desired, but iterative changes will move the project toward what is needed. Pat thanked John Sills, Jon Scanlon, and Lou DelZompo for their efforts in getting that Exchange mechanism up and running, they are doing amazing work. Pat apologized for not being able to be in attendance in person at the last meeting; the WCET event had been planned long in advance. She noted that it made her very aware of the difficulties of online attendance at a face-to-face meeting. She was challenged and frustrated by the one-to-many aspect and not really being able to hear what was happening. There is a big difference between all online meetings where everyone is on the same footing, and meetings that are face-to-face. In the next week or so Pat will put something out regarding the OTC and whether it will be possible to cover the cost of the conference for Steering Committee members. OEI currently has plans for three sessions, and it would be great to have other submissions if members want to do something on their own as well. Online Counseling RFP Approval of Vendor: Action Bonnie Peters summarized the RFP process followed for the Online Counseling platform. There are two goals for the online counseling network: 1) to create a network of online counselors trained in working with online students to partner with NBCC (The National Board of Certified Counselors) to ensure we are promoting quality assurance and professionalism in distance counseling services, and 2) to design a systematic and uniform approach to online counseling across the CCC system using a common meeting platform. The workgroup began meeting in April 2015 in partnership with the Foundation; the bulk of the committee membership came from faculty and some from pilot colleges. The same workgroup made up the evaluation committee for the RFP. The RFP was published and released the end of September Through the Foundation information was sent out to 130 vendors, there were eleven letters of intent to respond received, and nine vendors attended the pre-proposal conference. Ultimately two vendors met the requirements, and Cranium Café, a company based out of Salt Lake City, Utah was selected by the evaluation committee as the company they are asking the Steering Committee to support in their Notice of Intent to Award this contract. They would like to go into contract negotiations next week, and anticipate starting services January 2nd. Next steps after contract negotiations involve the work group intensifying their work on creating content for the online counselors professional development component taking the initial part of January and February, and then the project will start piloting somewhere around March or April. Cranium Café was designed specifically for online counseling, which was a major desire of the evaluation group. Rather than trying to modify and adapt an existing platform to meet the needs of online counseling, the platform was exactly designed to be used for that purpose. The founders of Cranium Café also started at community colleges which was appealing to the evaluation committee. They met almost everything that was desired. Those items that were not Online Education Initiative Zoom Online December 11, 2015 Page 2

3 yet available, according to their proposal, were slated for availability in December or early Their proposal suggests that they can deliver on the eighteen elements that were in the RFP. The committee felt that they were willing and motivated to innovate. From the technical side, Cranium Café had a strong understanding and practice of information security and high availability, with the technology built upon an Amazon web services foundation. Cranium Café seems to meet all of the important basic requirements for accessibility. Jayme also explained that they are adding a contract rider so that if any surprises come up where an accommodation is required, Cranium Café will pay for that accommodation. The product is web based and can be used with no installation required, with one click once it is incorporated into the college site or Canvas (unlike with Confer, no download is needed). In addition to these basics Cranium Café also had unique desirable features. One is the ability to translate speech to text when working with a second language student (for example, in Vietnamese) so that it is possible to communicate within a session without needing to have a translator available. They are still refining it, but it was demonstrated during their presentation. Document collaboration and text editing is also available within the platform, and the document library moves along with the student in connection with the counselor s account. Another counselor can go in and pull the case file and all the documents associated with the student will be there. There is a virtual lobby to support drop-in and walk-in counseling. Career Café also offers a customer advisory board that gets to inform new development. The company has worked with both universities and community colleges and has gained a lot of ground in a relatively short period of time in the realm of online counseling and advising in terms of offering a platform. This product also differs from CCCConfer in that it is designed specifically for online counseling and allows for an online lobby, and file transfer allowing the case file to move along with the student. Cranium Café allows activities to parallel what happens with on campus tutoring. The Education Planning Initiative (EPI) is working on the Student Portal and with Starfish, but those are really part of a set of tools, and are not oriented around setting up appointments. This platform will allow for scheduling with Cranium Café, and trained counselors and students should still be able to access information using the EPI tools. This is really more about envisioning the ability to move the counseling office online. Bonnie expressed her excitement about all of the features that the workgroup hoped to find that are available in Cranium Café: chat capability, quick one-click access, pre-scheduling meetings, and opportunities to create workshops with groups of students. There is no online demo available to look at right now, but Bonnie will check into making that available. Committee Action Taken: John Freitas moved approval of the workgroup recommendation to issue a Notice of Intent to Award the Online Counseling Platform to Cranium Café; Lisa Beach seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the committee. MOU Discussion: Since the last meeting the management team held a series of open office hours meeting times which were shared with Steering Committee members and SPOCs allowing for the opportunity for concerns and questions to be addressed. Specific concerns from Financial Aid and Admissions and Records staff were also discussed. Those meetings turned out very well, and may be used further in the future to allow for more discussion for these kinds of issues where more conversation would be beneficial. The SPOCs have the MOU to take back to their colleges and stakeholders can review it. Today is an opportunity to address any outstanding questions or concerns from the Steering Committee regarding the document. The management team is expecting to have signatures by the end of January from the eight colleges that will be covered under this MOU. Members were reminded that there will be further discussion later regarding what will happen with the larger groups. Online Education Initiative Zoom Online December 11, 2015 Page 3

4 Dan Crump asked about how the restriction against students signing up for a course that has the same C-ID designation would be checked and John Sills explained that it will be possible to pull the local SIS and look at the student s local schedule to compare. Dan also asked about opting out of local non-tuition related fees, and Bonnie clarified that the intent was to allow students to opt out of paying a local transit fee or other similar fees that are usually opt in items, if they have already paid elsewhere or are not interested in those services. John Freitas suggested that it would be useful to have some sort of diagrammatic explanation about how the registration is supposed to work that would use a work-flow or flow-chart diagram to show how the technology is supposed to interact and what is housed where. Fabiola expressed hope that the issues with prerequisites would be discussed in the Consortium since that is a key point. Bonnie emphasized that is an important issue and one which will probably evolve as the technology is able to allow for more options. Right now what is being brought to the Consortium is based upon what is possible now, but the technology will be evolving and changing to meet needs and desires. The pre-requisite clause is of major concern to the Academic Senate, and although right now the technology can t handle the situation where there are additional pre-requisites above the C-ID minimum, it should be able to handle them in the future. Pat emphasized that the way the process works for the existing classes and the first eight colleges does not set a precedent for what will exist and what classes will be offered as the process moves forward. We may be able to do a lot of work around prerequisite agreements outside of the technology as well. It is important to be aware that the project is not closing down the idea of other courses with a variety of prerequisites. Members felt that emphasis on this MOU not setting a precedent, should be explicitly reflected in black and white in the document. They understand this is just intended for the first eight pilot colleges, but want it to be made very clear that it is not intended to set a precedent, so that there is no confusion in the future. Christina asked about the list of students that are excluded from enrolling, including International and incarcerated students. Bonnie explained that has to do with policies and rules within those programs that are outside of the scope of the OEI. Joe Perret was concerned that decisions not be made based upon the technology, and Pat explained that the limitations are just based upon where the technology is right now. The technology development people know that those elements need to be planned for and they are working toward it, but some pieces cannot be built into the first iteration because of the complexity of the agreements involved; she believes that more will be possible over time. Bonnie agreed and noted that one of her roles right now is to liaise with the Technology Team, bringing them the rules so that they know why registration has to happen this way. Then the technology team is able to switch and move the technology to fit the project rules. Technology is not driving the process, instead it is figuring out what the project wants and how to apply the rules with the technology. The limitations do not come from the technology, but from our own rules. The technology developers are thinking about how to be open to what we need. Pat stated that everything would be easier if every college had the same SIS, but since they do not, that real problem of connecting between four or more SISs takes a lot of hard work. As those connectivity issues are solved, more functionality will be able to be built in. Lisa Beach reiterated the message she will be taking back to her stakeholders, The pilot is going to move forward. There are still things that are being worked out. The way the pilot operates is not necessarily the way the Consortium will operate going forward in the future. Jory agreed with that message and added that conversations about the longer term vision for the Exchange probably should start happening soon, perhaps through the Academic Affairs workgroup. The project is also waiting on approval from Foothill-DeAnza District legal counsel to vet the substance of the MOU document. After that the less substantive wording revisions and changes will be incorporated into the document. At the January 15 th meeting, the Steering Committee should be discussing in essence the final document. Online Education Initiative Zoom Online December 11, 2015 Page 4

5 John Freitas requested that the Steering Committee receive a copy of that document at least a few days before the meeting, not just on the date of the meeting. He also encouraged committee members to check back with their stakeholder groups before the January 15 th meeting so that any concerns can be expressed. Policy Subcommittee Status : The first order of business will be looking at the documents from Michelle Pilati related to the Minimum Use of CMS, and the Use of Proprietary Materials. John Freitas sent out a Doodle Poll to subcommittee members, and the group may have their first meeting during the first week of January. That might enable them to bring something forward at the January Steering Committee meeting. So far no other policy documents have come to the subcommittee. Action Items: 1) Add OER to the webpage 2) John Freitas will send language to be added to the website on the governance page clarifying that the Steering Committee is a Chancellor s Office advisory body to the OEI project. 3) In the next week or so Pat will put something out regarding the OTC and whether it will be possible to cover the cost of the conference for Steering Committee members. 4) Bonnie will check into making an online counseling platform available. 5) John Freitas suggested that it would be useful to have some sort of diagrammatic explanation about how the registration is supposed to work that would use a work-flow or flow-chart diagram to show how the technology is supposed to interact and what is housed where. 6) Committee members would like language added explicitly reflecting that this MOU is not intended to set a precedent. 7) John Freitas requested that the Steering Committee receive a copy of the MOU at least a few days before the meeting. 8) John Freitas encouraged committee members to check back with their stakeholder groups before the January 15 th meeting so that any concerns can be expressed. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be January 15 th in southern California. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 am. Online Education Initiative Zoom Online December 11, 2015 Page 5