UC Online Pilot Project. Advisory Board meeting. October 11, 2011

Transcription

1 UC Online Pilot Project. Advisory Board meeting October 11, 2011

2 PROGRESS REPORT

3 OIPP: The Courses Faculty and campus-led; Available from January 2012 With representation from most disciplines STEM (Physics) Social Sciences (Economics) Environmental studies (Climate Change) Arts and Humanities (Acoustics and Digital Music) At most levels Developmental (Pre-Calculus, Freshman Composition,) Major gateway (Introduction to Chemistry, Statistics, Computer Science) Breadth or elective courses (Terrorism and War, American Cybercultures) Some upper division (California Water Policy) Exploring a variety of approaches (often side by side to evaluate effectiveness) Synchronous and asynchronous seminars High and low-stakes assessment Innovations involving gaming, adaptive analytics, etc. 3

4 OIPP: The Timeline

5 Christopher Edley, Jr. Senior Policy Advisor to the President Lawrence H. Pitts Provost and Executive Vice President Academic Affairs UC Online Pilot Project Organizational Chart October 2011 Daniel Greenstein Vice Provost APPC Online Advisory Board Keith Williams Academic Coordinator UCD 50% OIPP Mara Hancock Director, Course Design & Development UCB 75% OIPP Lisa Baird Business and Financial Operations UCOP 67% OIPP DoQuyen Tran-Taylor Program Manager UCOP 100% OIPP UC Educational Evaluation Center UCSB Kirk Alexander Technology Lead UCD 80% OIPP Adam Hochman Technical Project Manager UCB 75% OIPP Kathy Zellers Northern Lead Instructional Designer UCB 100% OIPP Linda Smelser Southern Lead Instructional Designer UCI 100% OIPP Artemio Cardenas Project Analyst UCOP 100% OIPP Administrative Analyst (to be hired) 100% OIPP Berkeley Davis Merced Santa Cruz San Diego Irvine Los Angeles Santa Barbara Riverside Project ID Northern UCB (to be hired) 100% OIPP Instructional Designer UCB Instructional Designer UCD Instructional Designer UCM Instructional Designer UCSC Instructional Designer UCSD Project ID Southern UCI (to be hired) 100% OIPP Instructional Designer UCLA Instructional Designer UCSB Instructional Designer UCR Project ID Northern UCB (to be Hired) Digital Media Specialist UCB Digital Media Specialist UCD Digital Media Specialist UCSC Digital Media Specialist UCSD Digital Media Specialist UCI Digital Media Specialist UCLA Digital Media Specialist UCSB Digital Media Specialist UCR 100% OIPP Chart Key UCOP UCSB UCD --- Colors represent Institution UCB --- Longer dash boxes represent individuals associated with OIPP, but not part of reporting structure

6 OIPP: The Evaluation Developed with a lead campus model (UCSB) Adopting a two-tiered strategy --- At the course level, to tell us: How, whether, to what extent, and at what cost online education can be integrated effectively into UC s undergraduate curriculum How students learn online (supporting the continuous improvement of content, tools, and approaches that support student success) At the organizational level, asking how the project: Shapes stakeholder impressions of and willingness to engage in online instruction Leverages the university s distributed infrastructure and expertise 6

7 OIPP: The Common Learning Environment Developed with a lead campus model (Berkeley and UCLA) A next generation (highly interactive, mixed media, social ) learning environment Built in OAE (Sakai 3) as part of a multi-institutional opensource development effort With explicit and immediate migration strategies for 80 percent of campus LMS Leveraging / augmenting campus-based technology, instructional design and online course development expertise Creating opportunities for resource sharing (systems efficiencies) 7

8 Moving Aggressively Over the Summer to: Confirm OIPP course designs and budgets Establish grant funding and accounting mechanisms Implement a rights regime with author licenses Build a business strategy and revenue-sharing model Conduct market research Identify through RFI processes industry best practice in: Essential back-end business and administrative services Secure online testing Evaluate means for supporting cross-campus instruction (with leadership of the Academic Senate) 8

9 UC ONLINE EDUCATION. MARKET RESEARCH

10 Research Objective 10 Are there prospective students willing to pay $1,400 for a UC online course Or Can we identify and prioritize market opportunities for the use of UC s online undergraduate courses by understanding the perceived value of, demand for, and price sensitivity around the courses by cohort defined by age, region, educational level, academic preparedness (GPA), discipline, etc. 10

11 Methodology 11 A minute survey questionnaire completed by interview with 1,001 respondents who were all: 16 or more years of age High school senior through Baccalaureate degree holders With a minimum high school GPA of 2.6 Who were currently enrolled in or planned in the next three years to enroll in an Associate, Bachelor or Advanced degree program

12 Sample size and distribution 12 Completed Interviews Total (n=1001) CA (n=501) Western Region (Excluding CA) (n=250) Remaining U.S. (Excluding Western Region) (n=250) Undergraduate Traditional Students (16-24 years) Bachelor s Degree Intenders/Enrolled Associates Degree Intenders/Enrolled Undergraduate Adult Students (25+)/Advanced Degree Intenders Bachelor s Degree Intenders/Enrolled Associates Degree Intenders/Enrolled Advanced Degree Intenders As a point of reference, below is breakdown of high school GPA: Completed Interviews Total (n=1001) CA (n=501) Western Region (Excluding CA) (n=250) Remaining U.S. (Excluding Western Region) (n=250) GPA: 3.5 and above GPA:

13 How many are likely to enroll in online courses? 13 34% of those surveyed were likely to consider in enrolling in a online course Total (n=1 001) 27% 39% 34% Not at all likely Neutral Somewhat or Extremely Likely E1. How likely would you be to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely

14 Who are they? 14 Total (n=1001) 34% UC Online Interested (n=342) 100% (A) Traditional Students (n=500) (B) Adult Students (n=501) 31% 37% (C) Undergraduate Students (n=753) (D) Advanced Students (n=248) A 33% 39% (E) California Residents (n=501) (F) Non-California Residents (n=500) 18% F 50%

15 15 Where are they and what are their college plans? Total Interviews Total (n=1001) California (n=501) Western Region (Excluding CA) (n=250) Remaining U.S. (Excluding Western Region) (n=250) Total UC Interested (n=342) Undergraduate Traditional Students (16-24 years) Bachelor s Degree Intenders/Enrolled 31% 46% 17% 15% 32% 50% 16% 17% 28% 36% Associates Degree Intenders/Enrolled 27% 36% 22% 8% 9% Undergraduate Adult Students (25+)/Advanced Degree Intenders 37% 54% 22% 19% 17% 0 9% Bachelor s Degree Intenders/Enrolled 39% 57% 20% 19% Bachelor's Degree-Traditional/ Intenders Associate's Degree-Traditional/ Intenders Bachelor's Degree-Adult/Intenders Associate's Degree-Adult/Intenders Advanced Degree Intenders Associates Degree Intenders/Enrolled Advanced Degree Intenders 30% 49% 12% 11% 39% 55% 28% 23% S4a-d. Which of the following describes your college plans? Base: Total Respondents

16 What kinds of online courses are they likely to enroll in? 63% 59% 54% 55% 53% 48% B 44% D Total (n=227) (A) Traditional Students (n=99)* (B) Adult Students (n=128) (C) Undergraduate Students (n=168) (D) Advanced Students (n=59)* 69% (E) California Students (n=168) 64% (F) Non-California Students (n=59)* 60% 60% 58% 57% 52% 50% B 45% 46% 42% 42% 44% 41% 40% 41% 38% C 35% 36% 32% D 24% 16 Pre-requisite and introductory courses required for your associate's or bachelor's degree Elective courses that will count toward or prepare you for your degree Courses you need to prepare for transfer admission into an undergraduate college Courses you need to prepare for admission into a graduate or postgraduate program C2. What type of online courses are you likely to enroll in another institution? Data presented here include responses of : Maybe, Somewhat Likely and Very Likely

17 17 17 Do they prefer individual courses or sequences or two or more courses? Total (n=342) 55% 45% Traditional Students (n=155) Adult Students (n=187) 52% 58% 48% 42% Undergraduate Students (n=245) Advanced Students (n=97)* 54% 58% 46% 43% California Residents (n=251) Non-California Residents (n=91)* 54% 58% 47% 42% Individual Online Course Sequence of Courses D3b. Which of the following would you be more likely to enroll in?

18 What other characteristics are known about them? 18 Those living in California display much higher interest (73-74%), than those living in the western region (13-14%), the south (6%), the north east (3%) or the midwest (4%) Slightly more than half are under the age of 25 years of age Their average GPA is 3.5 Roughly 30% are likely to enroll in an institution other than they one they plan to receive or have received their degree from

19 What is their perception of price? 19 Price per course was given as $1,400 (to California residents) and initially as $1,750 (to non-california residents) A course was considered as a four-credit, quarter length course Data presented here refer only to the 34% of respondents who reported being extremely likely to enroll in a UC online course if offered for credit towards a degree

20 UC online courses were considered as good value 20 A greater proportion of those told that the price was $1,400 (California residents) thought the courses was excellent value than those told that the price was $1,750 (non-residents) California Residents (n=251) 23% 38% 39% Non-Residents (n=91)* 21% 46% 33% Poor Value Moderate Value Excellent Value E3. Do you consider [CA: $1,400, Non-CA: $1,750] for a standard length online course at University of California a good value? 10 point scale: 1=Poor Value, 10= Excellent Value

21 More non-residents than residents consider UC online courses excellent value at $1,400 When price was lowered from $1,750 to $1,400, the number of Non-Residents perceiving UC online courses as an excellent value jumped by 50% 21 Non-Residents: $1,750 (n=91)* 32% 46% 22% Reduced price Introduced Non-Residents: $1,400 (n=91)* 21% 46% 33% Poor Value Moderate Value Excellent Value E5. Do you consider $1,400 for a standard length online course at University of California a good value? 10 point scale: 1=Poor Value, 10= Excellent Value *Small base

22 What happens to enrollment interest when price is introduced? 22 For CA residents, interest in enrollment demonstrated before price was introduced, decreases when a $1,400 price per course is introduced For non-residents interest in enrollment demonstrated before price is introduced stable at the price of $1,750. However when the price is decreased to $1,400; enrollment consideration increases significantly to 53% CA Residents (n= 251) Non-Residents (n= 91)* 36% 46% 18% 17% 33% 50% A $1,750 $1,400 45% 38% 17% 31% 33% 36% $1,400 F 17% 30% 53% 0 Neutral Somewhat or E1. How likely would you be to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely E2. Assume that the price of a standard length course is (CA: $1,400, Outside CA: $1,750). How likely would you be to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely

23 What courses are students interested in taking online? 23

24 WAVE 2 COURSES

25 Scope courses A separate track for summer sessions, extensions, and academic units interested in including existing online courses as part of UCOE course offerings High-enrollment major gateway and elective (breadth) courses likely to be of interest to a broad constituencies

26 Wave 2 Criteria Courses will be: Fully online lower division, high enrollment and elective (breadth) courses Meet needs of UC students while being of interest to a broad body of non-uc students Complement the current list of courses being developed by the UC online initiative Preference may be given to: Courses taught to 150+ students at a time and multiple times a year (including summer sessions) Faculty who stand out as innovative and successful teachers Faculty willingness to work as part of the project team Consideration will also be given to: Cost of building the course Scope and tight of development effort required How new or ad hoc development effort contributes to the common learning environment

27 Two-Stage Review Process Interdisciplinary Senate committee selects a shortlist and recommends to Provost for further development Shortlisted faculty develop detailed course designs and budgets in consultation with project Instructional Designers (IDs) a subset of which to be recommended to Provost for implementation funding All shortlisted faculty to receive an honoraria of up to $xxx per LOI to develop their course proposals in more detail with project IDs

28 Support Available Up to $30,000 per course for time and assistance and specialized equipment/software needed to develop the course Available as course release, summer salary, or as contribution to research or lab funds (if justified by faculty time spent developing the course)

29 Draft Timeline October 2011 Release Jan 2012 Shortlist developed March 2013 Wave 2 courses selected with detailed road maps and budget