AGENDA Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Academic Affairs Meeting #3 Recommendations/Strategies

Transcription

1 AGENDA Task Force on Postsecondary Online Education in Florida Academic Affairs Meeting #3 Recommendations/Strategies September 26, :30-11:30 AM EST or upon adjournment WebEx: Phone Number: , Participant code: , then # 1. Opening Remarks and Meeting Guidelines Cyndy Loomis, ISF Review purpose of meeting. Committee Members will be addressed in the order indicated on this agenda to allow for one speaker at a time. Questions and discussion will be held after each topic has been presented, with the Committee Members being addressed in alphabetical order. An open dialog will be held at the end of the meeting to allow for additional discussion, questions, and answers. 2. Introductions ISF and Committee Members Cyndy Loomis, ISF Tammy Young, ISF Lauren Kemper, ISF Dr. Doug Wartzok (Chair) Dr. Andy McCollough (Vice Chair) Ruth Ann Balla Rebecca Rust Dr. Valerie Bryan Jana Kooi Dr. Nancy McKee (Optional)

2 Dr. Joel Hartman (Optional) 3. Review/Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes ISF and Committee Members See Attachment A: Committee Meeting #2 Minutes. 4. Recommendations/Strategies for Topics See Attachment B: Recommendations/Strategies. Topics Aligning Programs with State Needs Best Practices MOOCs Faculty Collaboration for Course Development Sharing Information and Resources Development and Use of E- Textbooks and Other Electronic Materials Goals and Performance Presenting Committee Member Rebecca Rust Dr. Valerie Bryan Dr. Doug Wartzok Ruth Ann Balla Dr. Andy McCollough Jana Kooi The Committee agreed to Discussion Order Bryan Wartzok McCollough Balla Kooi Wartzok McCollough Balla Kooi Rust McCollough Balla Kooi Rust Bryan Balla Kooi Rust Bryan Wartzok Kooi Rust Bryan Wartzok McCollough Rust Bryan Wartzok McCollough Balla Kooi Rust

3 Measures work collectively on this Bryan Wartzok McCollough Balla Competency Based Programs Ruth Ann Balla 5. Discussion of FLVC LBR Issues Balla Kooi Rust Bryan Wartzok Topics Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) E Resources Endorsed with comments at the last committee meeting Presenting Committee Member Dr. Wartzok Discussion Order McCollough Balla Kooi Rust Bryan 6. Educational Positioning System (EPS) Discussion Committee Members See Attachment C: EPS LBR Revised Language. Issue is on hold; waiting for Board of Governors and Board of Education meetings. 7. Open Discussion ISF and Committee Members 8. Discussion of Next Assignment ISF 9. Closing Remarks, Action Items, and Adjournment ISF

4 Attachment A: Committee Meeting #2 Minutes

5 TASK FORCE ON POSTSECONDARY ONLINE EDUCATION IN FLORIDA ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Meeting #2 Research/Investigation August 26, :30 A.M. 12:30 P.M. MINUTES Task Force Charge: Recommend strategies for better coordinating services and online programs in the State University System and the Florida College System and, to the extent feasible, across other delivery systems to ensure state economic development needs and student demands are being met in an effective and cost-efficient manner. 1. Opening Remarks and Meeting Guidelines Cyndy Loomis Cyndy Loomis, ISF, opened the meeting with a review of its purpose, order for addressing Committee Members, questions and discussion, and open dialog. She also reminded the attendees that this was a publicly noticed meeting. 2. Introduction Cyndy Loomis Cyndy Loomis, ISF, led roll call/introductions. The following were present: Cyndy Loomis, ISF Lauren Kemper, ISF Dr. Doug Wartzok (Chair) Ruth Ann Balla George Foster (Listening in for Rebecca Rust) Dr. Valerie Bryan Jana Kooi Committee members not present: Dr. Andy McCollough (Vice Chair) Rebecca Rust (George Foster participated for her) 3. Review/Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes ISF and Committee Members Cyndy Loomis reviewed the process for submitting and approving minutes. Committee Members did not have any additional changes. The minutes for the Committee s Meeting #1 Topic Definition/Plan of Action were approved and will be posted to the Florida Board of Governors website. Page 1

6 4. Research/Investigation for Topics Committee members presented their research, investigation, and recommendations for their topics as described below. Topic: Aligning Programs with State Needs Presenting Committee Member: Rebecca Rust On behalf of Rebecca Rust, Cyndy Loomis presented an overview of her topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After she discussed the topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Cyndy Loomis: Ms. Loomis asked the Committee for feedback on Ms. Rust s short-term recommendations. o Dr. Wartzok asked about the information that Dr. McCollough was to provide to Ms. Rust for her FETPIP data request. Ms. Loomis followed up with Ms. Rust prior to the Committee Meeting and will help coordinate obtaining data from UF to send to FETPIP. o Dr. Wartzok explained that this would be a good trial run for Ms. Rust s recommendations, and we should move the recommendation from long-term to short-term. Ms. Loomis specified that (in addition to the recommendations in her report), Ms. Rust plans to provide a short-term recommendation that has colleges and universities establishing local committees (Business Advisory Boards) to explore workforce needs. However, it was noted that such committees already exist at virtually all the FCS and SUS institutions. Topic: MOOCs Presenting Committee Member: Dr. Doug Wartzok Dr. Doug Wartzok presented an overview of his topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After he discussed his topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Ruth Ann Balla: Ms. Balla asked Dr. Wartzok about general MOOCs that are strictly for developmental purposes and not for credit. Would developmental MOOCs also be listed in FLVC? Page 2

7 o Dr. Wartzok focused primarily on for-credit MOOCs, but appreciates Ms. Balla s comment. Developmental MOOCs need more attention. Jana Kooi: Ms. Kooi discussed her agreement with Dr. Wartzok s direction for his topic. Dr. Doug Wartzok Dr. Doug Wartzok presented a concept for discussion where UF Institute for Online Learning could lead any research and investigation areas and FLVC would be responsible for statewide implementation. A delineation such as this would help with dividing responsibilities for the Task Force s recommendations. Ms. Loomis asked the Committee for their thoughts concerning this potential approach: o Dr. Bryan needs more clarification on UF s charge and responsibilities. o Ms. Kooi agreed that working together will be beneficial, but it needs to be done in collaboration with each other. Ms. Loomis mentioned that the UF plan for the Institute would be posted on the BOG web site the week of September 3. ISF will provide the link to the Task Force when it becomes available. She also offered to setup a meeting with Dr. McCollough, Dr. Wartzok, and Dr. McKee to discuss this topic in further detail. o Ms. Balla presented the concern that it is important for equal representation from college and university perspectives. Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok discussed his short-term and long-term recommendations. o Dr. Bryan asked if Dr. Wartzok has more information on the framework that is being developed by the Lumina foundation. Dr. Wartzok understood that they are working on around 90 competencies expressed for degrees. Work is based on the validation for total Associates Degrees rather than course-by-course. Competency that is tied to academic credits is variable. Some universities are relating to credits while others do not relate to credit at all. He has looked at Lumina in respect to guidelines outlined by the legislature. Jana Kooi: Ms. Kooi recommended that universities and colleges continue to abide by SACS accreditation guidelines for accepting MOOCs as credit. o Dr. Wartzok explained that this was an underlying assumption for his recommendation. Ms. Kooi wanted to ensure that a completely new approval avenue is not being created and that the home institutions still follow their own accreditation and acceptance of credit standards. Page 3

8 Dr. Valerie Bryan: Dr. Bryan brought up the concern of portfolio assessments and how they do not fit in this category. o Dr. Wartzok agreed that they do not because the Committee is specifically responding to legislation that specifies academic credit for online courses. Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok discussed the FLVC LBR request for e-resources and the concern that there would be overlap with the LBR made by the SUS. His recommendation was that the FLVC move forward with their LBR and that there is not an overlap with SUS. As it moves forward, FLVC and SUS need to clarify the two LBR s complementary nature. The committee endorsed this approach, and this recommendation will be taken to the Task Force for approval. Topic: Best Practices Presenting Committee Member: Dr. Valerie Bryan Dr. Valerie Bryan presented an overview of her topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After she discussed her topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Dr. Bryan asked for feedback concerning cost. Discussion: Cyndy Loomis: Ms. Loomis will talk to Dr. Hartman to verify that he is looking at statewide data collection for the cost of course development. Ms. Loomis also offered to talk with the other Committees and forward any information that they may have to Dr. Bryan. Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok needed clarification about the long-term recommendation #1; he was unsure what the institutions were being grandfathered into. o Dr. Bryan clarified that some institutions are expressing concern that their best practices will be lost due to new ones coming in. These institutions do not want their working processes to be replaced. The purpose of the recommendation is to address this concern and reassure the institutions that their own best practices and processes will be able to remain in place. Dr. Wartzok does not think the Committee should be striving toward a narrow list of best practices because of the variety of institutions. o Dr. Bryan is addressing that concern by looking outside of Florida and at current practices as part of her research. Page 4

9 Cyndy Loomis: Ms. Loomis needed clarification about Dr. Bryan s final recommendations. Will she make them or is she looking at the Committee to provide more information? o Dr. Bryan will be providing first cut of recommendations just needed help with the cost topic. Ruth Ann Balla: Ms. Balla wanted to ensure that it was clear that best practices would be presented as guidelines so that it could mitigate pushback from faculty members. o Dr. Bryan agreed. She provided an anecdote explaining that there can be three completely different courses that still meet best practice standards. Ms. Balla stated that was a good point do not want courses to be cookie cutter. Ms. Kooi also asked if the final report is mentioning any companies that can come in and take over the program or do course development. Are there any statements about partnerships/collaboration? o Dr. Bryan has not looked at the corporate model. Cyndy Loomis: Ms. Loomis asked if Dr. Bryan would like to weave it within her topic. o Dr. Bryan agreed to see what she could find. Jana Kooi: Ms. Kooi emphasized that a framework is different from a template. She emphasized that best practices must be comfortable for faculty members. She also explained the need to delineate between faculty training and development of programs. o Dr. Bryan agreed. Topic: Faculty Collaboration for Course Development Presenting Committee Member: Ruth Ann Balla Ruth Ann Balla presented an overview of her topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After she discussed her topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Ruth Ann Balla: Ms. Balla discussed her recommendations for faculty collaboration. o Dr. Bryan discussed that a project similar to Ms. Balla s recommendation for a repository was created in the 1970 s but eventually ceased, possibly due to funding. Page 5

10 Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok stated he would have a hard time supporting the recommendation for legislative funding to create a common set of courses in the State of Florida. He felt that this has already been accomplished by institutions. o Ms. Balla wanted to bring this topic up as a way to start the discussion. She was looking to find a way to get more collaboration and sharing throughout the state. Dr. Wartzok believed that this LBR recommendation is not needed because of common course numbering and the work of the institutions. Dr. Valerie Bryan: Dr. Bryan reiterated that institutions have already spent so much time in the development stage and would not want to start over. Dr. Bryan also brought up that institutions would be worried about sharing expertise as well. Cyndy Loomis: Ms. Loomis asked if there is a desire to have some of the core courses developed and used statewide by institutions. o Ms. Balla replied that it would depend on whom you ask. Ms. Loomis asked what position we should take as a Task Force. o Dr. Wartzok stated that the Task Force should strive for efficiency. Jana Kooi: Ms. Kooi agreed with the rest of the Committee Members. She discussed Orange Grove. She suggested that if that was to be upgraded to be more sophisticated and higher quality standards, it could incorporate learning objects. o Dr. Wartzok agreed. He recommended providing suggestions to make Orange Grove something that is useful. Right now, little material is high quality and items are difficult to find. He suggested adding a process for peer review to add efficiency and cut down material search time. o Dr. Bryan also brought up how lesson plans and learning objects would go well in this model. Cyndy Loomis: Ms. Loomis suggested that Ms. Balla review the Orange Grove recommendations from the BOG / FSCS Working Group activities that occurred about 18 months ago. Ruth Ann Balla: Ms. Balla discussed the second half of her topic, course development, and competency-based programs. Page 6

11 Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok stated there are so many available options. It is best to accumulate this information and best practices associated with it. Dr. Wartzok noted that most of the competency-based programs are broken into multiple modules with students demonstrating competency on one module and then moving on to the next. He asked, how competency assessments determine whether student are able to synthesize material across modules to ensure that the student truly understands material. This is an essential part of the education process. o Dr. Bryan agreed. She gave an example of students taking so many online courses that once in the workforce, they were unable to collaborate with one another. She was not aware of competency-based work in models such as Sim City that can help a student synthesize and increase critical thinking. Jana Kooi: Ms. Kooi stated that this goes back to development of courses. Good standards for course development are not linear. Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok stated that it is important to distinguish between new programs with competency-based processes built in compared to determining competency for new students who show up with a completion certificate. Topic: Sharing Information and Resources Presenting Committee Member: Dr. Andy McCollough Dr. McCollough was not available. Cyndy Loomis suggested that Dr. McCollough work with the Technology and Data Issues Committee to ensure collaboration and mitigate overlap. In addition, she would follow up with Dr. McCollough to ensure alignment of work. Topic: Development and Use of E-Textbooks and Other Electronic Materials Presenting Committee Member: Jana Kooi Jana Kooi presented an overview of her topic as found in the agenda packet for the meeting. After she discussed her topic, the floor was open to questions and comments in the order found in the agenda packet. Discussion: Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok spoke to Ms. Kooi s question about her short-term recommendation. She asked, how do we handle the commercial side of the house? There are many companies that want to help colleges and universities with this matter. Page 7

12 o Ms. Kooi addressed his question, but stated that she does not want the institution s standards and accreditation guidelines to change. Dr. Valerie Bryan: Dr. Bryan discussed that outside vendors may not produce materials that are as high quality as in-house faculty member. She brought up the point that faculty members who author resources cannot use own material. o Ms. Kooi agreed and that she deals with that at her institution. Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok discussed a process to get around that issue. o Ms. Kooi said that he had a good recommendation, but it would have to be worked through all the universities. o Dr. Wartzok stated that there is also another way, which is issuing a work for hire contract for the faculty member who then receives a stipend for the material. Ruth Ann Balla: Ms. Balla emphasized that supportive materials are as important as e-textbooks o Ms. Kooi agreed and stated that she will clarify it further in her section. Cyndy Loomis: Ms. Loomis suggested a conference call with Ms. Balla and Ms. Kooi since there is much overlap between topics. Topic: Goals and Performance Measures Presenting Committee Member: N/A Cyndy Loomis suggested that as the Technology and Data Issues Committee develops their strategies, she would send this information to the Academic Affairs Committee members so they may include their research and recommendations. 5. Discussion of FLVC LBR Issues Committee Members Each issue was discussed during the topic discussions above. 6. Review Outline of Final Report ISF Cyndy Loomis discussed the schedule for the report review and development. Dr. Bryan asked what length is expected for each topic. Ms. Loomis stated 4-6 pages (including overview/current state, short-term recommendations, and long-term recommendations). ISF would rather have more information, rather than less. Page 8

13 Ms. Loomis explained that the sub-section Emerging Trends will be pulled from the Executive Summary and presented as its own section. It will serve as the backdrop to the report. 7. Educational Positions System (EPS) Discussion ISF Cyndy reviewed the topic and the opinions of the Faculty and Student Services Committee, which included the concern that this LBR issue requires broader input. Ms. Loomis would like feedback from other Committees that she can share with the Faculty and Student Services Committee. Dr. Doug Wartzok: Dr. Wartzok stated that the recommendation was good, but he would recommend not submitting this LBR request at this time until the meaning of the LBR is clearer. o Dr. Bryan agreed. Jana Kooi: Ms. Kooi discussed that other states are doing this and are successful, so it may be a good idea to move forward with this. However, she stated that major benchmarking for statewide support needed to be done. Ruth Ann Balla: Ms. Balla stated that she wants to move forward. The LBR meaning will shift with the Task Force s recommendations. She discussed that if it is not submitted now, then it would be two years away from even beginning the investigation phase. This LBR is not funding the building, but the investigation activities. Dr. Wartzok reasoned that the LBR is more specific than what the Task Force is asked to review. He explained that he could support the request if it was reframed to not to include actual recommendations. Ms. Loomis stated that she will share this feedback with the Faculty and Student Services Committee and discussed that a vote from the entire Task Force may be needed before a recommendation can be determined. 8. Closing Remarks, Action Items, and Adjournment ISF Ms. Loomis will write up a formal FETPIP data request for Rebecca Rust. Ms. Loomis will coordinate with Dr. Wartzok, Dr. Hartman, and Dr. McKee to facilitate a conference call to be posted on the BOG website. Ms. Loomis will ask other Task Force Members about cost information concerning Dr. Bryan s topic. Ms. Loomis will coordinate with Ms. Balla and Ms. Kooi to facilitate a conference call to be posted on the BOG website. Page 9

14 Ms. Loomis will ask Dr. McKee about the UF report that is due this upcoming Friday. Page 10

15 Attachment B: Recommendations and Strategies Topics Aligning Programs with State Needs Presenting Committee Member Rebecca Rust Attached Comments Best Practices Dr. Valerie Bryan Attached MOOCs Dr. Doug Wartzok Attached Faculty Collaboration for Course Development Sharing Information and Resources Development and Use of E- Textbooks and Other Electronic Materials Goals and Performance Measures Competency Based Programs Ruth Ann Balla Dr. Andy McCollough Jana Kooi The Committee agreed to work collectively on this Ruth Ann Balla Attached Pending Attached Pending (after all other recommendations are complete) Attached

16 Meeting #3 Recommendations/Strategies Please provide the following information as your final assignment. You can use whatever format and font you prefer (i.e., you do not need to put the information in the table format). This information will become the basis for the final report. If you need assistance, please contact Cyndy, Tammy, or Lauren. DUE DATE: Monday, September 16, 2013 PAGE LIMIT: Please keep this assignment to no more than 6 pages. Your Name Assigned Issue Current State Next Steps (Short-Term Recommendations) Rebecca Rust, Chief Bureau of Labor Market Statistics Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Online education program alignment with the hiring needs of business/state economic development needs After interviews with select university and college online program representatives, it was determined that Florida already has many programs geared to job market needs. Some institutions are totally geared to employer needs and some are partially tied. The trend clearly is to move toward having positive employment outcomes for student graduates. There did seem to be gaps in knowledge of data sources related to labor market information but there was a strong demand for more data. Recommendation #1 Strategic Planning: University and college system online program strategic plans should include a description of how new online programs will consider alignment with state and regional employment needs. Issues and Other Considerations: Unknown if all education institutions have online strategic plans. If plans do not exist then this

17 recommendation would include the development of such a plan. Recommendation #2 Business Partnerships: University and college system online programs should pursue business partnerships to support development of new online programs. Issues and Other Considerations: There are many examples of best practices among the institutions online programs that could be used for replication. This is perhaps the most important recommendation of all to tie programs to the needs of employers. Recommendation #3 Business Advisory Board: University and college system online programs should consult with an external or business advisory board during the development of new online degree programs. Issues and Other Considerations: Business Advisory Boards, Committees, or Groups may already exist for this purpose or alternative purposes. The goal of ensuring alignment with business could be added to existing Boards if forming a new Board is not feasible. Recommendation #4 Labor Statistics: The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Labor Market Statistics, should provide current state and regional labor statistics on jobs in demand to universities and colleges at least semiannually for their use in developing market-

18 based new online degree programs. Issues and Other Considerations: Data delivery methods and institution contacts would need to be developed. Some webinars may need to be provided for understanding data capabilities. Data consisting of current and projected industry and occupational employment, online job ads by occupation, supply/demand ratios by occupation, and wages by industry and occupation would be included. Recommendation #5 Workforce Coordinator: University and college system online programs should consider having a faculty or staff member serve as a workforce coordinator to oversee activities related to alignment of online programs with employer needs. Issues and Other Considerations: Funding limitations may prevent adding positions for workforce coordinators, but existing faculty or staff could be trained for this activity. Recommendation #6 FETPIP Follow-Up: University and college system should pursue the possibility of using FETPIP follow-up data separated out for online program graduates to compare employment and wages to those not educated online. Issues and Other Considerations: It is not known if current FETPIP can parse data by fully online, hybrid, and fully face-to-face degree programs. Small cell size could be problematic for online graduates if the cell size by program is less than 10.

19 Future Goals (Long-Term Recommendations) Recommendation #7 Annual FETPIP Follow-Up: University and college system should pursue annual ongoing reviews of FETPIP follow-up data to compare employment and wage outcomes of online program graduates to those not educated online, given results of recommendation #4. Issues and Other Considerations: Maintenance of follow-up records over time should be able to give feedback for institutions to make adjustments to programs (or a reallocation of resources) based on the most successful outcomes. Recommendation #8 Performance-Based Funding: University and college system should consider tying results of FETPIP follow-up reviews to performance-based funding which would impact allocations to institutions. Issues and Other Considerations: Performance-based funding tied to follow-up data will take longer to design and implement due to many complexities. Recommendation #9 Pilot Use of Labor Statistics: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Labor Market Statistics, should develop a pilot with a few select institutions on use of labor statistics for program planning to further improve the production and delivery of workforce information geared toward positive outcomes. This pilot will also determine data methods for institutions to use in applying

20 labor statistics for program design. Issues and Other Considerations: Matching data availability to institutional needs may have limitations due to reporting differences of public and private institutions. Training in use of several data series will be needed. This partnership should improve data production and delivery from DEO in addition to developing education institutions data utilization for improved program design. Implementation Approach/Timeline and Proposed Responsible Entity: Committee Chairs can determine the approach, the timelines, and responsible entities for all recommendations.

21 Meeting #3 Research/Investigation Areas of Inquiry Name Assigned Issue Results of Investigation and Research Information Requested Dr. Valerie C. Bryan Charles Stewart Mott Eminent Scholar of Community Education Professor, Florida Atlantic University, Ed Leadership & Research Methodology's Adult & Community Education Jupiter: ED 207 I Ed Classroom, 5353 Parkside Drive, Jupiter, FL /FAX Academic Affairs Committee: Best Practices To identify best practices in online education that will lead to both credit and noncredit programs and an exemplary delivery system. Investigate if a process is needed to enable educators to share information about programs and processes that are noteworthy or that deserved both recognition and adoption statewide. A comprehensive review of current sites addressing Best Practices has been conducted. Initial meta-analysis has yielded the following results: 1. Many educational institutions and study reports across the USA do not include all of the following elements listed below in addressing best practices. In some cases the items are addressed, but are subdivided across their institutions and no unit oversees all elements in a coordinated fashion. For instance, in some settings the following elements are all reviewed in order to assess best practices : (1) Institution support for the postsecondary online learning, (2) Technological support for the postsecondary online learning, (3) Course development and design, (4) Course structure, (5) Teaching and learning, (6) Social and student engagement, (5) Faculty support,

22 (6) Student support, (7) Evaluation and assessment with a feedback loop. Within each of the items are separate processes that may or may not be comprehensive. For instance, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education was diligent in addressing the majority of areas listed about and the processes under each element. The University of Maryland University College and the Hanover Research Council also attended to the elements and the processes. Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) (2011). Distance education programs: Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education (Online Learning). Philadelphia, PA: Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Retrieved from Distance-Education-Programs.pdf and Center for Teaching and Learning (n.d.). Best practices for online learning. Adelphia, MD: Office of Evaluation, Research, and Grants at University of Maryland University College. Retrieved from Hanover Research Council (2009). Best practices in online teaching strategies. Washington, DC: Hanover Research Council. Retrieved from Practices-in-Online-Teaching-Strategies-Membership.pdf 2. Most of the educational institutions and study reports clearly focus on both standard markers and excellence markers for teaching both online and blended courses, but do not have standards in place for the other items listed above in #1 as elements. But even when the educational institution and study report only focused on standards and excellence markers for teaching online, they often fail to include all the items that are normally required in face-to-face settings. For instance, for excellence to occur in the classroom, a governance plan is needed to place postsecondary online education as a high priority with adequate policies and guidelines in place within the stated strategic plans. For excellence in the classroom to occur the faculty and student should have clear policies and procedures in place for obtaining the best fiscal and technological support. Few of the best practices models address these elements.

23 The online student needs to know how to obtain academic advising, financial assistance, peer support, library access, etc., regardless of time of day or campus environment. Online librarians need to be in place for the student who does not understand how to access the materials, conduct formal research online, or how to avoid plagiarism. Tutorials need to be in place for all those after-hours or Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Assessment tools need to be linked to measurable standards or benchmarks that are part of the strategic plan just as other courses are. Students need to be assessed regarding their learning capacity and level, their technology skill readiness, learning styles or preference, and preferred social and student engagement. Few of the best practices models addressed these items. (See U.S. Department of Education, National Education Technology Plan). The online faculty should have load assignments and teaching assistants support that are equitable to other faculty teaching face-to-face. None of the best practices models address load capacity for online classes by type or structure. The models did not address compensation for the faculty using his or her own computer equipment, home access to internet, data security, telephone for Linkedin or twitter or Hootsuite, etc.nor did the models discuss whether a faculty should be compensated for the development of new courses that have to be front-loaded for himself or herself to use and possibly other faculty. Faculty training was mentioned frequently, but rarely as specifically. Such as, the faculty needs to be trained not only in their content area, but also in the use of the technology and how to do work-arounds when the technologies do no work. Few of the reports noted that the faculty needed training in how to have a presence in working with diverse students across states, countries, time zones, cultural groups, etc. and the value of turn-around time for engagement. As noted earlier, few of the models addressed these elements. [Many of the items are clearly delineated in the Sloan Consortium report (see 3. In few cases did the best practices models address the needs of students with disabilities. The lack of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was evident in many of the studies reviewed. By designing online courses that center on multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression as well as multiple means of engagement, the faculty and student take the learning back to the community and additional learning occurs. This practice though designed for

24 students with disabilities helps all learners to be empowered. For postsecondary online learners many may be returning to the classroom after a long disengagement. Other postsecondary online learners may have learning disabilities that are undiagnosed and need multiple structures to reach them may be a means to make them successful in the classroom. There was no evidence provided in any of the studies of a learning assessment or a technology assessment as built in tools for the online delivery. These same structures may also engage the learners that do not have disability. [See CAST (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from None of the best practices models addressed by the use of adaptive technologies that can aid both the student with disabilities and the student who has no disabilities. Tools have been designed that enhance communication, digital text for visual and auditory impairments, memory tools, graphics and video tools, internet tools, virtual meetings, avatar coaches, etc., that may assist the postsecondary online learner that has minor sight or auditory impairments. Since many of the postsecondary learners are older and may have visual or auditory issues or may not have been exposed to the newer technologies, these components need to be addressed in a best practices model. 4. In only one of the best practices models were there elements to specifically tie the postsecondary learning to career paths appropriate for the community or for instruction that supported the student in securing employment in the changing workplace. Community-wide assessments need to be tied to workforce needs with student graduation rates in all areas of concern to meet demands of the workforce. 5. Institutional support needs to be more clearly defined. Few of the reports truly addressed the components of institutional support. None of the reports addressed specifics of intellectual property of course materials or development of e-textbooks. Few of the best practices models address security of data at the institution level. None of the reports or best practices models addressed how online learning would be funded, what the expectations were in terms of delivery, or the

25 specifics of how postsecondary online education would be evaluated. 6. Assessment was a topic that frequently surfaced. Evaluation and assessment were related to establishment of collection procedures, type of data collected, and learning outcomes and impact (for student, faculty and institutional evaluation). In some cases these tied back to the institutional support and in other cases it did not. Statewide Initiative Recommend: A review of a Universal Design for Learning model across the state or a more comprehensive approach to integrating current practices and technologies for students with disabilities. Many of these techniques and practices that are essential for students with disabilities may assist postsecondary learners regardless of disability. Statewide Initiative Recommend: Create an exemplary clearinghouse that recognizes institutions that have a clearly defined best practices model in place at their institution. Have resources available for others to emulate statewide. Provide resources for training others how to adopt the model. Combinations of Institutions Recommend: As part of the best practices model specifically address the tie of postsecondary learning to career paths appropriate for the community or for instruction that supports the student in securing employment in the changing Recommended Assignment or chosen through a competitive selection process Mandatory or Opt-In Institutions should be allowed to opt-in based on their institutional preference. Recommended Assignment Chairs of committee Recommended Assignment Opt-In Committee chairs Another State-Level Organization (e.g., Department of Economic Opportunity) Institutions should be allowed to opt-in

26 workplace. based on their institutional preference. Each Institution Recommended: More clearly define the standards needed to tie the learning and teaching to the strategic plan from the classroom level to the top of the institution to assure resources are available to make the exemplary practices possible and that the assessment trail is clearly defined. Mandatory State College System This may include compensation for faculty creating online courses, changes in P&T processes, new methods of engaging students (use of social media; e-textbooks; online resource centers- One Stop Shops), more student driven services for engagement or service learning in the community, etc. This may also require more faculty and student engagement in strategic boards. Each Institution Recommended: Institutional support needs to be more clearly defined. Opt-In Each postsecondary institution

27 I. MOOCs for Credit Final Report on Assigned Issue MOOCs Dr. Doug Wartzok Provost and Executive Vice President Florida International University Beginning in the school year, the Board of Governors and the State Board of Education are required to adopt rules that enable students to earn academic credit for online courses, including massive open online courses, prior to initial enrollment at a postsecondary institution. This document outlines recommendations for developing and delivering a set of MOOCs that are offered statewide. Rules by which credit can be earned by completing these MOOCs are proposed. Presently, universities are in the pilot phase of their efforts to offer MOOCs for Credit. It is strongly recommended to launch pilot efforts prior to committing all resources to a MOOC-for-credit effort. The Lumina Foundation is funding a 2 year project to develop a common framework for what constitutes college learning and then apply it to assessing MOOCs. II. Summary of Current State A. Business Models There are 6 business models higher education institutions are using or are planning to use for granting academic credits for MOOCs. The goal of the models is to attract new students to degree programs and to offer a lower tuition through MOOCs for credit. It is still too early to assess the pros and cons of each model since initiatives to offer MOOCs for credits began only about one year ago. Institutions Granting Credits for MOOCs Built by Home Institution Description: This model describes a university granting credit for MOOCs that it develops inhouse using the institutions course standards and degree program learning outcomes. An individual student would have to request their MOOC transcript/syllabus be reviewed and considered, similar to the way courses from transfer universities are reviewed and considered, and the student would have to complete a proctored exam to prove their knowledge on the subject. The MOOC would

28 be offered for free for students who do not want credit. When a student requests the MOOC be considered for credit, the student would pay a fee lower than regular tuition. Pros: The facts that the MOOC is less expensive to students and more accessible and a student only has to pay for the MOOC when the student requests credit for it, may lead to new enrollments. Such students would not have otherwise enrolled without the MOOC option for additional credit courses or academic degrees or certificates. Cons: The MOOC still has to be funded, built, and hosted by the home university. Universities which have this Model in Place: Georgia State University (though not many students have requested their MOOCs be considered for credit; not necessarily a market indicator, but may be a result of poor communication to students regarding available options). Universities Considering Implementing this Model: Cleveland State University; Lamar University; Utah State University; University of Arkansas; University of Cincinnati; University of Texas at Arlington. Institutions Granting Credits for MOOCs Built by Other Universities and Institutions Description: This model is similar to the model described above, with the addition that the home university will also review and consider granting credit for MOOCs a student has completed at other universities or MOCC providers (Couresa, Udacity, or EdX). A student would still need to request their MOOC transcript/syllabus be reviewed and considered for credit, and the student would have to complete a proctored exam at their home institution. The student would need to pay their home institution a fee lower than regular institution/state tuition at the time of requesting the MOOC from the other university to be considered for credit. The American Council on Education (ACE) operates a credit-recommendation service that evaluates individual MOOCs built by other universities and instiutions. If a MOOC passes ACE s evaluation, ACE advises its 1,800 member colleges that ACE approves of the MOOC being granted credit. It is still up to the college to grant credit

29 for a MOOC. Five MOOCs have been recommended by ACE for academic credit to universities. Pros: The home university does not have to fund, build, and host the MOOC. The fact that a student who completed a MOOC from another university may be granted credit at their home university for a lower cost may incentivize new students, who would not have otherwise enrolled without the MOOC option, into academic degrees. Cons: The home university will not leverage its reputation of its own MOOCs and will lose tuition revenue on the course accepted for credit. In addition, the course content will need to reviewed and validated to ensure that course supports the degree learning objectives of the institution. Universities Considering Implementing or have Implemented this Model: Georgia State University, San Jose State with Udacity (currently suspended), Colorado State University Global Campus with Udacity. Institutions Offering the First Course of a Degree Program as a MOOC Description: This model describes a university offering the first course of a degree program as a MOOC. The student would be granted credit for this MOOC and would never have to pay for the MOOC, even after continuing to the other non-mooc courses of the degree program. The concept is that revenues will derive from students who complete the degree, who would not have otherwise enrolled without the MOOC as the first course of the program. Pros: Students who have not made the decision to enroll in a program may be strongly incentivized to join knowing that the first course is free. The rest of the selling features (student experience, collaboration, and interaction) have to come into play during the first term in order for students to continue the degree. Con: The MOOC has to be funded, built, and hosted using the institutions course standards and degree program learning outcomes by the home university. Universities which have this Model in Place: University of Cincinnati; Academic Partnerships through its partner institutions.

30 Universities Licensing MOOCs From Other Universities Through Coursera Description: Coursera (the licensor) licenses MOOCs from another university to the home university (the licensee) to be used in a degree program at the home university. Students would have to pay the home university (the licensee) a fee lower than regular institution/state tuition. The MOOC will still have branding from the university which developed the MOOC, but is offered as one of the home institution s online courses. The MOOC still maintains its original professor from another university, but the home university provides students a faculty member/instructor who serves as an additional study advisor to discuss material and assign supplementary material. Antioch University, which is currently partnered with Coursera, assigns 20 student to 1 supplementary faculty member/instructor. Antioch University paid Coursera an undisclosed up-front payment. From students who enroll in the MOOCs at the home university, Coursera receives between 6 and 15 percent, and the institution and professor of the MOOC receive about 20 percent of gross profits. Pros: The home university does not have to fund, build, and host the MOOC. The home institution is able to leverage the MOOCs home institution reputation (in the cases the MOOC is from a prominent institution). Cons: The home university will not leverage the reputation of its own MOOCs. Universities which have this Model in Place: Antioch University for certain degree programs; State University of New York for its most populous undergraduate general education courses. Universities Partnering with Corporations and Udacity Description: This model describes a home university partnering with a corporation and Udacity to offer specific degree programs which prepare professionals for the specific industry of the corporation, through MOOC style courses through Udacity. Students would complete a proctored exam at the end of each MOOC at a proctoring center (not necessarily on-campus of the home university). Students would pay for the MOOC style courses but a lower cost than the regular institution/state tuition. The corporation helps fund the building and hosting of the MOOCs. Revenues from the

31 tuition students pay is distributed among the home university, the corporation, and Udacity. Pros: This partnership model is especially attractive to corporations in industries lacking a workforce with the necessary skillset or education. The corporation funds the development of the MOOCs, and using the Udacity platforms decreases costs further for the home university because the home university is able to benefit from Udacity s hosting scales. Cons: Less profit is kept at the home university since revenue has to be shared with the corporation and/or Udacity (however, in the long run, the smaller profit may be offset by a larger student and alumni base which may bring additional growth opportunities to the home university). Universities which have this Model in Place: Georgia Institute of Technology partnered with AT&T and Udacity to offer a master s in computer science. AT&T donated $2 million to launch the degree. AT&T hopes this degree will prepare more workers in the industry and hopes to target AT&T employees and non-employees. The profits (and losses) will be shared by Georgia Tech and Udacity 60/40, respectively. B. Developmental MOOCS Completion rates for postsecondary education students taking remedial education courses fall below state and national goals. As stated in Complete College America, there is a documented need to accelerate mastery of college-ready skills, completion of gateway courses, and enrollment into programs of study 1. The importance of improving student accessibility and success when placed in pre-college courses has become crucial to the State of Florida s goals for college completion rates. Designing MOOCS that incorporate Florida s College System Competencies promotes the skills necessary for students to successfully earn postsecondary degrees. 1 Various Authors. (2012). Core Principles for Transforming Remedial Education. Complete College Retrieved September 16, 2013 from

32 Developmental MOOCs will add value to a larger student population of learners than can be reached with current methods. These include: Currently enrolled college students who enroll in MOOCs for increased study and supplemental resources. Prospective students pursuing a degree who enroll in MOOCs to complete required developmental education course(s). Additionally, developmental MOOCS deliver cost saving opportunities for high schools and colleges that leverage the ready-made professional quality courses. Broward College was recently selected for a $300,000 grant from the Florida Department of Education to fund development of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in foundational subjects. Broward College s proposal, supported by College Access Challenge Grant funds, uses a competency-based approach to instructional design that assesses students abilities and helps them focus their time and energy on areas that need the most attention. This self-paced approach drives an effective, timeefficient pathway to success for students seeking to boost their reading, writing or math skills. This massive open online course (MOOC) will be provided for use by the entire state, and will be unique in its use of game-based learning activities. III. Next Steps Recommendation #1: Establish rules that enable students to earn academic credit for massive open online courses. Proposed rules are as follows: 1. MOCC must be built by an SUS/FCS institution or must be approved by ACE as eligible for credit. 2. MOOC is associated with a lower division course. 3. Student must obtain certification of completion for the MOCC and complete assessment approved by the home institution granting credit. Recommendation #2: Identify a set of MOOCs for Credit to be developed by SUS/FCS institutions and offered statewide. The set of MOOCs to be developed should be identified FLVC by the end of 2013 with development funded by the Legislature in FLVC would then generate an RPF for development of these MOOCs by SUS/FCS institutions.