Aliens, Adversaries, and Advocates: Working With the SMEs. Nancy C. Cheski, M.Ed. Instructional Designer Sullivan University Global E-Learning

Transcription

1 Aliens, Adversaries, and Advocates: Working With the SMEs Nancy C. Cheski, M.Ed. Instructional Designer Sullivan University Global E-Learning Peggy S. Muller, M.Ed. Instructional Designer Sullivan University Global E-Learning Based in Louisville, Kentucky, Sullivan University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and offers degrees at the Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral level. Sullivan has four physical campuses in Louisville, Lexington, and Fort Knox, plus its new online Global e-learning campus, established in December With approximately 8,000 students, Sullivan is Kentucky's largest private university. It is known for its Executive MBA, Culinary Arts and Doctor of Pharmacy programs. Additionally, Sullivan University System also owns Spencerian Colleges with locations in Louisville and Lexington, and the newly renamed Sullivan College of Technology and Design (formally known as Louisville Institute of Technology). Their Computer Graphic Design program was named the 2009 Outstanding Technical Program by the American Technical Education Association. Sullivan University ventured into the online environment in Like many institutions, courses were developed with the resources at hand, usually with minimal attention to formalized instructional design principles, or adherence to set standards or processes, etc. This was a new arena and best practices were not very apparent or mostly non-existent; and like many others Sullivan struggled to figure out things as they went along. Sullivan s first online offering consisted of just one course presented for two terms. It was followed by an office administration course. Shortly thereafter, the entire bachelor s in hospitality management was developed and things took off from there. By winter of 2001, Sullivan had 28 online courses. There was a weeding out process that naturally took place the first few terms and the program offerings and student numbers started growing rapidly. With experience, online course development improved each term but still lacked the instructional rigor that was desired. It s now 2010 and the Global E-Learning staff has three instructional designers, two instructional technologists, an Executive Director, Dean, and an Assistant Dean. In addition Global E-Learning has its own Registrar, Academic Services, Admissions, and Financial Aid departments, employing 30 people and continuing to grow profitably. Sullivan is on a four quarter system of eleven weeks each. From its catalog of approximately300 unique online courses, Sullivan currently offers approximately 175 courses each quarter that are copied into 250 class sections to the 4 campuses. Until Sullivan hired its first official Instructional Designer (ID) in 2008, experienced online staff resources were at a minimum, along with the ability to create well designed courses rather than just online correspondence courses. In most cases, existing staffers spent the majority of their time putting out fires rather than concentrating on development. That s not to say that some did not hit the mark, but there was a lack of consistency in approach, no set standards of creation or production, and sound instructional principles were not always applied. Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 1

2 This paper addresses the practices and processes that have been put in over time. These processes are also a moving target, as Sullivan continually refines its standards and processes. Practices and resource changes implemented over the past three years include: A Master Course model to develop all courses Development of an instructional guidance packet for all course developers that includes established course design standards for all courses, new or upgraded Additional staff support and ongoing faculty training and support A timeline agreement for development, signed by the course developer An instructor online certification program Future plans include: Hiring only adjunct instructors to deliver online programs Working with contracted SMEs rather than instructors to develop courses Creation of a course style sheet The Master Course Model In the beginning, instructors used the CLEGA platform and they were responsible developing their own courses and for copying their own sections in to new shells each quarter. This proved to be a hit or miss situation. Additionally, multiple sections of one course could be taught by more than one instructor, each doing their own instructional development. This resulted in an overall inconsistency and quality in the content that was delivered. To bring order to the chaos caused by these issues, course coordinators were assigned to coordinate all course scheduling and development. A few years later (early 2008) the Master Course model was implemented shortly after Sullivan converted over to the ANGEL LMS The master course solved several problems. Courses copied into multiple sections now all had the same material and followed one syllabus and testing regimen. In addition, the positions of Instructional Technologists were created and they were tasked to copy all the courses, triage various problems with the system, and provide technical and sometimes, instructional guidance to the instructors as they delivered their courses. This added even more consistency and much needed oversight into the copying process. However, it did not solve the problem of good instructional design which would provide more rigorously developed content, effective content organization, and testing that would meet substantively designed objectives. This issue precipitated the need for some sort of instructional process to guide course developers. Thus, was born an instructional packet of materials along with an assigned instructional designer to facilitate the development process. Instructional Development Packet One the first processes put into place was a development packet for instructors who were assigned to develop courses. This packet included a template that outlined a formal structure, week by week, on how instructional content should be entered into the LMS. Templates began the establishment of a consistent look and feel for the courses, a long-term goal of the university. In addition, links to Exemplary Courses were also made available to developers. This made it easier to achieve buy-in both from administration and faculty who had anxiety about this new endeavor. No longer could course developers say that no one explained to them what was required or requested of them. The course packet includes the following documents: How to set up a course schedule including a model, information required, etc. Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 2

3 Directions on what to include in the syllabus; this help to eliminate unneeded or redundant information spelled out elsewhere and to ensure that course goals and objectives were included Gagne s Nine Events of Instruction to help develop effective lessons Course development checklist to ensure required instructional elements were not missed Week by week template that outlines what is required for each and every week A timeline that outlines an agreement between the developer and the assigned ID on an expected production schedule (usual development timeline is two quarters) As the experience of both designers and developers increases, and as course standards are modified, this packet is routinely reviewed and also modified to incorporate the best ideas of all involved. Staff Support In the beginning, support issues were not clearly delineated and everyone jumped in where they could. It became very obvious that defined responsibilities and additional expertise were sorely needed. A critical hire was a Dean in early 2008, whose responsibility along with the Executive Director (hired about 5years prior), was to organize the online venture into a productive and effective resource for the university. His expertise in online instruction along with a strong research background brought needed credibility and experience to maintain existing momentum and to take the online program to the next level and beyond. Other major staffing changes were: The addition of an experienced Instructional Designer in 2008, and two more within the next year and half Creation of two Instructional Technologists positions. They provide LMS training to the instructors and continually monitor existing courses for problems. Their perspective provides extremely valuable input to the designers on existing problems and help to establish existing standards An assistant Dean position who takes care of administrative issues involving the adjuncts Additional positions for admissions, financial aid and student services were added as the volume of online student registrations has increased The result of all this exponential growth was the creation of Global e-learning as its own campus in December As an independent entity, it is now able to truly create its own destiny by taking over responsibility for all major aspects of online education for Sullivan University. Timeline Instrument When a new course is identified for development, it is given a development time of two quarters or 22 weeks. Past history at Sullivan has proven that this amount of time is more than adequate to develop a new course. The variable that may skew that estimate is the availability and workload of both the instructor and the ID but overall this timeline works quite effectively. SMEs work with the Instructional Designer to identify those benchmarks. In addition the SME must sign the timeline document as evidence of agreement to meet that development schedule. Within that timeline, specific products are identified to be done at certain dates within that time. The ID evaluates the quality and quantity of the material presented and adjustments are made. SMEs are paid to develop courses in a series of three payments as benchmarks outlined in the timeline are achieved. If products are not delivered as agreed upon in the timeline, payments are withheld until issues are resolved. Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 3

4 Online Instructor Certification To further guide instructors along in the Sullivan environment and to introduce them to online best practices, Sullivan created an online instructor training and certification course, now in its second pilot. Participants are given about an approximate two week window to complete the course, just prior to their presenting their specific online course. The course consists of four lessons. One addresses the logistics of the LMS. It includes downloadable how to instructions on the most used functions in a course. The second two lessons address best practices for online teaching, and the fourth outlines information on resources available to a Sullivan instructor (i.e., library, LMS assistance, etc.). The first three lessons will be gated and must be passed before proceeding onto the next one. Since the fourth lesson addresses Sullivan specific resources only, it is not gated. In addition, the course is monitored for questions that may pertain to clarification of a concept and to resolve any technical issues that may occur. For the most part, it is mainly a self-study course at this point. Expanding it into a more extensive course is being discussed as a future option. Participants must also sign a Statement of Responsibility that is turned in at the completion of the online course. This document states that the instructor is able to competently demonstrate various technology functions in addition to those of the LMS. Each participant is also tasked to perform a checklist on the courses they will present and also to execute functions such inserting their bios, course schedule, or setting up additional discussion forums to assess their facility with the LMS. Once instructors complete their first online, the certification is complete. It still has to be determined what process will be put into place if they do not successfully complete the online training course. Final evaluation measures are still in development. Future Plans Future plans include hiring only adjunct instructors to deliver online programs and contracted SMEs rather than instructors to develop courses. This is a more a matter of workload for current fulltime faculty, who are caught between their existing responsibilities and taking on additional development tasks and presenting online courses. Both require serious dedication and time to achieve the level of quality that Sullivan strives for. Using SMEs to provide content also allows the instructional designers more control over course quality and adherence to the ever evolving standards and practice such as SACs issues. The creation of a course style sheet emerged during our process of rebuilding courses and observing a variety of approaches to some very simple content insertions. In many cases, they did not affect course quality, but took away from the specific look and feel we strive for. Some suggested changes will include: Specific terms being spelled the same way Consistent presentation of university policies; one document with one message Consistent use of one type font, size, and other publication type issues In Conclusion Sullivan s online processes and standards are still in flux. And it is safe to say, they will continue to evolve as the organization grows. As more development staff is added to the organization, they will demonstrate their experiences and talents, the ability to add new instructional approaches to content will occur, and standards and processes will again be modified to accommodate those changes. Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 4

5 As for the Aliens, Adversaries, and Advocates, they are brought along essentially the same way. Reigning in the enthusiastic developer who has more ideas than time, hand-holding the newbie, or convincing the not-sure, all require the implementation of excellent instructional practices and standards. We at Sullivan believe we are on the right track and will continue to apply sound instructional guidance coupled with the understanding and appreciation of all that our experts bring to the party. About the Presenters Nancy Cheski is an Instructional Designer with Sullivan University Global E-Learning. Cheski has over 15 years of training and instructional design experience. She has served and/or lead teams to develop corporate-wide human resource systems, developed online military instruction for both commissioned and non-commissioned officers, and has designed clinical and technical systems instruction for a national healthcare company. Her academic experience covers online development for both public and private forprofit post-secondary institutions. Cheski holds a Master of Education degree from the University of Louisville (KY) and has completed doctoral level studies (ABD) also at the University of Louisville. Address: Sullivan University 2100 Gardiner Lane, RM 320 Louisville, KY, ncheski@sullivan.edu Phone: Fax: Peggy Muller has over eight years of instructional design and training experience in business, postsecondary education, and government. Muller has been involved in the development of courses for health systems application, computer-aided drafting, philosophy and the Dale Carnegie Competency Based Development System blended learning solutions. As the first Instructional Designer hired by Sullivan University, she is responsible for many of the changes in process that have occurred since Muller has a Master of Education degree in Instructional Technology from the University of Louisville (KY) and has taken doctoral level courses at the University of Louisville. Address: Sullivan University 2100 Gardiner Lane, Rm. 320 Louisville, KY mmuller@sullivan.edu Phone: Fax: Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 5