Distance and Online Learning Support Action Team …...ii Distance and Online Learning Support...

ii

Distance and Online Learning Support Action Team Members

Ruth Benander, Professor, English & Communication, UC Blue Ash

Melody Clark, Academic Director, Distance Learning & Director, Continuing Education, Office of the Provost

Dawn Clineman, Director of Distance Learning, College of Allied Health Sciences

Chris Edwards, Assistant Dean, Information Technology & Communications & Director, Center for Academic Technologies & Educational Resources (CATER), College of Nursing

Paul Foster, Assistant Director, Instructional & Research Computing, UCIT (Co‐Chair)

Lisa Holstrom, Assistant Dean, Enrollment Management and Support, College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services (Co‐Chair)

Ann Millacci, Educator, Educational Leadership Program, College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services

Joanna Mitro, Professor and Associate Dean for Undergraduate Affairs, McMicken College of Arts & Sciences

Glenda Neff, Director, UC Clermont Business & Educational Outreach

Matt Rota, Director, Instructional Design, College of Nursing

Leslie Schick, Associate Dean of Library Services and Director, Health Sciences Library

Carolyn Stoll, Manager, Instructional Design and Content, UCIT

Courtney Kluesener, Graduate Assistant, College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services and OAT Coordinator

iii

Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... iv

Overview of Online Learning at UC ............................................................................................................................... 1

Alignment with UC2019 and AMP ................................................................................................................................. 1

Administration ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

TEACH Act Compliance .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Resources for Central Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 3

Retention ................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Converting from Paper to Digital Forms .................................................................................................................... 5

Technology .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Standardize software and hardware tools ................................................................................................................ 6

Streaming Video System ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Web Conferencing ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Virtual Computer Lab................................................................................................................................................. 8

Design and Pedagogy ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

Quality Matters™ ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

Creating Standard Online Course Shells .................................................................................................................. 10

Training Resources for Faculty Teaching Online ...................................................................................................... 10

Streamlined Access to Faculty Development .......................................................................................................... 12

Student Support .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

New Online Student Orientation ............................................................................................................................. 13

508 Compliance ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

List of Tables Table 1 ‐ Growth of Online Learning at UC .................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2 ‐ Comparison of Online to Total UC Demographics – Autumn 2011 ................................................................ 1 Table 3 ‐ Cost for TEACH Act Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 3 Table 4 ‐ Cost for Strengthening Central Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 4 Table 5 ‐ Cost for Converting from Paper to Digital Forms ............................................................................................ 5 Table 6 ‐ Costs for Streaming Video System .................................................................................................................. 7 Table 7 ‐ Costs for Web Conferencing ........................................................................................................................... 8 Table 8 ‐ Costs for Virtual Lab Service ........................................................................................................................... 8 Table 9 ‐ Cost for Quality Matters™ .............................................................................................................................. 9 Table 10 ‐ Cost for Training Resources for Faculty Teaching Online ........................................................................... 12 Table 11 ‐ Cost for New Online Student Orientation ................................................................................................... 13 Table 12 ‐ Cost for 508 Compliance ............................................................................................................................. 14

Appendices Appendix A – Draft Job Description for Vice Provost for E‐Learning

Appendix B – UC2019 Proposal for Online Technology, submitted to Kristi Nelson on 2/29/12

iv

Executive Summary The Distance and Online Learning Support Action Team (OAT) was formed in 2011 shortly after the Blue Ribbon Task Force had completed its assessment of the state of Academic Information Technology at UC. One of three Action Teams, the OAT was composed of representatives from the each of the major online programs plus representatives from several central units. The OAT was charged with “developing processes, systems or structures to improve the coordination and utilization of distance and online learning support personnel and resources at the unit and centralized levels.” Over the past five years, online education at UC has grown from a distributed, unit level initiative to a significant enterprise within the institution with over 4,000 students, generating 33,000 credit hours and over $32MM in gross tuition revenue. As such, UC's online programs have reached a scale that consolidation of services would result in significant cost and quality benefits. There is also a need to strengthen our current support infrastructure and adapt many of our current support services to include and/or better serve our online students and faculty. To meet these needs, the OAT developed a series of recommendations for online learning at UC that align with both the UC2019 Strategic Plan and the Academic Master Plan (AMP). These recommendations can be broken down into the following 4 areas: Administration: The OAT recommends strengthening the central administrative infrastructure for online learning by creating a new Vice‐Provost of E‐Learning, to coordinate and advocate for online learning at UC. This position will also convene advisory boards to provide unit level input and strategic thinking to central administration. We also recommend that central administration move to make UC a TEACH Act compliant institution, that metrics such as “retention” and “benchmark” regarding online learning be better defined, and that where possible paper processes be made electronic. Technology: The OAT recommends adopting and providing a standard package of hardware and software for designing and developing online courses that faculty could purchase at the bookstore. We also recommend evaluating our current web conferencing system for possible upgrade or adoption of a new system. And finally, we recommend upgrading our streaming video system both for ease of use by faculty but also to enable UC to be TEACH Act compliant. Design and Pedagogy: The OAT recommends fully implementing Quality Matters™ as an institution and establishing a goal of having all online courses QM certified. To that end, we recommend providing training in applying the QM Rubric and creating branded course shells for all UC online course offerings. We also recommend providing training resources for faculty and adjunct instructors who teach online and/or design online courses. Finally, we recommend that access to professional development resources be streamlined into a “one‐stop” solution, as recommended in the AMP. Student Support: The OAT recommends creating a New Student Orientation process specifically for online students. We also recommend tasking Disability Services with ensuring that online learning content is compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Finally, we recommend the virtualization of our computer labs so that online students can access the specialized software packages that are currently available to on campus students.

1

Overview of Online Learning at UC Online learning is an integral part of the University of Cincinnati’s 21st century approach to transforming lives, education, and knowledge by meeting mounting workforce and student demands for customized curriculum, flexible delivery, and use of 21st century technology. While UC’s online learning opportunities are helping to meet the diverse educational needs of students by increasing access to high quality educational programs and offerings, the institutional infrastructure to support online learning has not kept pace consistently across all colleges and programs. To better understand the magnitude of the problem this lack of infrastructure creates, it’s important to understand the impact online learning is having at UC. A snapshot of online learning at UC for Autumn 2011 shows:

10 colleges offering online programs, certificates, and courses

24 total degree programs/tracks [2 Assoc; 6 Bach; 16 Master program/tracks]

26 total certificate programs/tracks [8 Ug; 18 Grad] In the past five years, online learning at UC has grown tremendously, as seen in Table 1.

Autumn 2006 Autumn 2011 Percent Change

Online Instructional FTE’s 1,352 3,809 +182%

Online Degree Programs/Tracks Offered

15 24 +60%

Enrollment in Online Programs

2,290 4,133 +80%

Table 1 ‐ Growth of Online Learning at UC

Another way to think about these numbers is to consider that headcount in online programs in Autumn 2011 was about equal to the total headcount in College of Engineering and Applied Science; it was actually larger than the headcount in College of Business or in UC Clermont. During FY11, students in online degree programs generated almost 33,000 credit hours and over $32,000,000 in tuition revenue. These credit hours are about equal to those generated in DAAP, and more than Nursing or CCM and Medicine combined. The revenue generated last fiscal year from online programs is about equal to the projected FY12 revenue for DAAP. Online learning is also changing the face of UC, literally. As online learning grows, so does the diversity of the institution, as seen in Table 2.

Online Total UC Minorities 22% 14% Female 80% 54% 25+ 90% 34% Average Age 35 25

Table 2 ‐ Comparison of Online to Total UC Demographics – Autumn 2011

It’s clear from the data that online learning can no longer be thought of as a mere alternative to the traditional classroom. Its impact already compares to that of a college by itself and is growing quickly and gaining momentum. Ensuring that growth is channeled to best meet the needs of UC’s students will require clearly articulated goals and standards, as well as resources and infrastructure to meet them.

Alignment with UC2019 and AMP Going forward, online learning will clearly play a crucial role in UC’s educational mission, so it is important that university resources and infrastructure keep pace. Specifically, online learning will be a critical component in

2

furthering UC2019/Academic Master Plan strategic goals (Learning, Diversity, Economy, and others). The recommendations in this report align with these AMP action steps:

Conduct an environmental assessment (internal audit and external benchmarks) and engage the university community to develop a plan for determining the right mix of online, hybrid and face‐to‐face offerings by college

Expand online course offerings and programs in areas where there are market opportunities consistent with academic priorities

Cultivate online learning in targeted sectors to serve continuing professional development needs of industry

Strategically determine how, when and where online learning offerings best meet students’ needs

Create more efficient programmatic resources for faculty and graduate students teaching online courses

Use Quality Matters™ and other guidelines to ensure online offerings are of the highest quality

Share best practices in online teaching and learning across colleges Using these action steps as our guideposts, the OAT examined various components of UC’s online enterprise and the institution’s ability to sustain and strengthen current online offerings and to seed and nurture new programs and courses. In doing so, we broke our recommendations down into four areas that are critical for quality and success:

Administration

Technology

Design and Pedagogy

Student Support The remainder of this report will examine our specific recommendation for each of these four areas.

3

Administration TEACH Act Compliance Problem

The TEACH Act was enacted in 2002 and was designed to “level the playing field” for use of copyrighted works in online classrooms. For instance, where a teacher in a face‐to‐face classroom may have been able to claim Fair Use when showing a full length feature film as part of their instruction, an online teacher could not have done the same prior to the passage of the TEACH Act without violating copyright. The TEACH Act specifically addresses this inequality by providing guidelines and procedures for use of digital media in the online classroom. UC is not currently in compliance with a number of these guidelines and procedures, which puts our institution at a disadvantage in providing quality online instruction as well at potential risk for copyright infringement violations and subsequent lawsuits.

Recommendations

We recommend that the University should implement the practices and policies called for by 17 U.S.C. § 110(2) as soon as possible so that instructors can take advantage of the copyright exemptions provided for by the TEACH Act. Specifically, the University should:

Adopt a copyright policy that complies with 17 U.S.C. § 110(2) to enable full use of the provisions of the TEACH Act applying to digitally delivered classes

Include a copyright notice in all online classes

Begin a marketing campaign designed to promote copyright compliance

Where appropriate, implement technological measures to prevent the retention and further dissemination of copyrighted material used in online classes

Implementation

We estimate the cost of implementing this recommendation, as seen in Table 3, to be a one‐time investment of $5000 for the marketing campaign to promote copyright compliance. This is separate from the cost of technological enhancements needed to meet the requirements of the TEACH Act. The timeframe for implementation would be Spring 2013.

Recommendation Item Cost One‐time Investment

Annual Permanent Budget Request

$5,000

Total $5,000

Table 3 ‐ Cost for TEACH Act Compliance

Resources for Central Infrastructure

Problem

The growth in online learning at UC has created tremendous opportunities, but has also created a number of needs that must be addressed. While several colleges have successfully built and marketed online programs, they have reached a point in their growth where they could benefit significantly from coordinating with other colleges and with central support units to leverage better pricing for services and products and to avoid duplication of efforts. Meanwhile, colleges who might be planning to begin offering new online courses and programs are in need of guidance and resources in every area to make that venture successful, from marketing, to business planning, to instructional design.

Recommendations

We recommend the following actions to immediately improve the infrastructure support of UC's online enterprise:

A national search for a full‐time, 100% dedicated position in the Provost's Office. (Please see Appendix A for a draft job description.) This new position would be titled Vice Provost for E‐Learning and would

4

provide executive‐level sponsorship and representation for issues concerning online education across the University, while advocating for resources and policies that support quality online teaching and learning experiences. The Vice Provost for E‐Learning would sit on the newly proposed IT Council and also convene an advisory board (see below) and manage the relationship with marketing vendor(s) like Embanet Compass. In addition, this position would be the first stop for any program, new or existing, who is considering online delivery. Business planning and navigation support through the UC approval process is crucial. The impact of this position would mean greater collaboration and communication across academic units, leading to greater work efficiencies, higher and consistent quality, and strategic use of academic unit‐level resources and expertise. Due to the complexity of this position, a full‐time support position is also recommended. A coordinator position may also be necessary within a year.

A new standing committee should be formed, as part of the UC Integrated Decision Making system. The Online@UC Advisory Board will be comprised of a representative from each college and relevant unit, such as Admissions/Transfer Center, Grad School, financial aid, registrar, IRC, CETL, etc. Convened by the new Vice Provost of E‐Learning, these representatives would serve as conduits of feedback, input, and strategic thinking towards achieving higher, more consistent quality online teaching and learning experiences. We recommend that every college be represented on this board.

Implementation

The cost for implementing this recommendation is $389,000 annually, as shown in Table 4. The recommended timeframe for implementation is as soon as possible.



Salary for new position $100,000 + $35,000 benefits = $135,000

Salary for support staff $40,000 + 14,000 benefits = $64,000

Additional budget for travel, faculty stipends, training $200,000

Total $389,000

Table 4 ‐ Cost for Strengthening Central Infrastructure

Retention Problem

Retaining our online students is critical to the University’s mission, particularly as this population continues to increase. While some of the same retention strategies for campus students could be utilized for online students, there are differences that make it necessary to examine the needs of this specific population. For instance, how do we orient these students and make them part of the campus community? How do we define retention in the online environment and what are our benchmarks for it? We need to identify and provide the necessary services and resources to support online students. Systems should be in place at all levels ‐ program, unit, college, and university – from the first time a student contacts the university through graduation.

Recommendation

We recommend the following for our online student population:

Define retention benchmarks for online learning

Develop data collection methods to assess whether UC is meeting retention benchmarks

Develop retention strategies aimed specifically at the needs of the online student

Identify services and resources unique to the online student experience to achieve efficiencies and economies of scale

5

Identify what is currently available within the university including what college online programs already have in place

Decide at what level support should reside (university, college, unit, program)

Implementation

Since this is a call for planning rather than action steps, the cost for this recommendation is zero. The timeframe for implementing is during FY13 with ongoing continuous assessment.

Converting from Paper to Digital Forms

Problem

One of the biggest frustrations for online students at UC is their inability to take care of administrative tasks online. For instance, virtually every form currently on the Registrar’s website is a paper version that has to be printed out and mailed in. In some cases, such as Drop/Add slips, forms have to be filled out in person with accompanying signatures. Not having digital versions of important administrative forms affects student retention and overall satisfaction with the online learning experience at UC. Additionally, paper based systems are environmentally unfriendly and costly in terms of purchasing the forms and supplies. The OAT realizes that electronic forms will be part of the next Student Information System (SIS), but does not believe that UC can wait until the new SIS is implemented before making this change.

Recommendation

We recommend that UC colleges and departments move from current paper‐based and in‐person forms and processes to online and/or digital versions, where the Ohio Board of Regents would allow. All existing required approvals will be preserved through systems similar to the way instructors confirm participation when a student receiving financial aid withdraws electronically. This will benefit all UC students and instructors, but is especially important for those students and instructors who never come to any of UC’s physical campuses. Moving from paper and in‐person forms to online versions will remove barriers for many students and instructors and will result in increased student and instructor satisfaction. This change will certainly benefit online students, but will also benefit students with disabilities, working students, and any student who has difficulty obtaining required signatures. After the initial upfront costs, there will also be a significant cost savings for the university for paper and printing of forms.

Implementation

The cost of this recommendation is estimated to be a one‐time investment of $50,000 for programming needed to convert to digital systems, as seen below in Table 5.



Total $50,000

Table 5 ‐ Cost for Converting from Paper to Digital Forms

The recommended time frame for implementation is during FY13.

6

Technology Standardize software and hardware tools Problem

Currently, instructors who are teaching online or developing online courses have inconsistent access to hardware and software, depending on their home college or department. Often, instructors who are new to teaching or developing content for online are unaware of what tools and software are available or which ones work best for a given situation. Additionally, there is a lack consolidation in purchasing. Software applications are purchased by colleges and departments at expensive, single user license prices, which is inefficient and costly. What is needed is a standardized, agreed upon package of hardware and applications for online teaching or course development that can be offered to faculty through the UC Bookstore.

Recommendation

We recommend the following immediate actions to standardize the academic information technology software and hardware tools available to faculty developing and delivering online or hybrid courses.

Engage the newly proposed Teaching and Learning Topical Committee, university/unit instructional designers, and unit level IT managers to identify a list, or package of hardware and software tools that are program agnostic and will support a variety of pedagogical strategies

Involve unit level personnel to ensure college‐level support and development services complement the package of tools

Coordinate support services with unit and central help desks

Work with the IT Managers Task Force to ensure the unified service catalog includes products and services to support the standardized hardware and software tools package

Coordinate the purchase of the package of standardized hardware and software to leverage scale and reduce costs

Work with CET&L to develop professional development and training opportunities to support the recommended package of tools

Work with the FTRC to develop how‐to and FAQ documentation to support the use of the recommended package of tools

Develop a university‐wide community of practice around the hardware and software tools package to share innovative strategies and provide peer support

Implementation

Costs for this recommendation are to be determined based on selection of hardware and software. The recommended timeframe for implementation is Spring 2013.

Streaming Video System

Problem

UCIT currently maintains two streaming systems for instructors to use: a Windows Media server and the Adobe Flash‐based Wowza server. Both systems suffer from several limitations that make them impractical for fully online classes and programs. Neither system has a mechanism to restrict viewing to only the students in a specific class, nor do they have the capability to prevent further redistribution by students. Because the current systems do not contain support for these restrictions, UC cannot take advantage of the copyright exemptions provided for by the TEACH Act. This limits instructors to uploading only content that is in the public domain or content to which UC or the instructor owns the copyright. Furthermore, neither of the current systems are truly cross‐platform, nor do they support the automatic conversion (transcoding) of media files into alternative formats. If an instructor has a digital video in Windows Media format, they must manually convert that file to additional formats to ensure that students with Macs or tablets are able to view the files.

7

Recommendation

We recommend that prior to Fall Semester 2012, UCIT should be asked to implement a replacement streaming system identified by a committee of representatives from the major online programs. Any replacement system, at a minimum, must:

Meet the requirements of 17 U.S.C. §§ 110(2)(C) – (D), including: o The capability to restrict the delivery of copyrighted material to just the registered students in a

class o The capability to restrict the retention and redistribution of copyrighted material

Include support for automatic transcoding of uploaded files for viewing on multiple platforms

Support both PC and Macintosh based systems

Support both iOS and Android‐based mobile devices

Make it possible for programs to upload content that is not specific to a class, but still restricted to a specific set of students (e.g., program orientation materials)

Implementation

We have requested one time funding of $75,000 in the OAT UC2019 proposal. If the data warrants maintaining this system after the first year, ongoing funding of $75,000 per year will be sought from the ITIE Council.



$75,000

Total $75,000

Table 6 ‐ Costs for Streaming Video System

The OAT Proposal for one time funding for this recommendation is included in Appendix B of this report. The recommended time frame for implementation is Fall 2012.

Web Conferencing Problem

UCIT's current web conferencing service is Elluminate Live!. That application is in need of an update, and we're currently limited to 50 concurrent users, so there is an immediate need to increase our capacity. Rather than simply continuing with Elluminate Live!, we can take this opportunity to re‐evaluate our web conferencing service and obtain the best solution for our community.

Currently, there are individual colleges and programs that have purchased licenses for Adobe Connect. The user reviews of this product have been positive, but, again, purchasing multiple licenses for the same product across campus is inefficient and costly.

Recommendation

We recommend that an ad‐hoc committee be formed with both central and unit level input to examine options for university wide web conferencing solutions. This committee should investigate the following options:

Renewing our license for Elluminate Live! and upgrading to more seats

Moving to Adobe Connect

Moving to Microsoft Lync

Moving to another product

8

Implementation

The estimated cost for this recommendation is shown in Table 7.



$40,600

Total $40,600

Table 7 ‐ Costs for Web Conferencing

A proposal requesting UC 2019 funds for this recommendation has been submitted. That proposal is Appendix B of this report. The recommended timeframe for implementation is Fall 2012.

Virtual Computer Lab

Problem

Online students often have issues with having the right hardware and software to accomplish their coursework. They also sometimes struggle with remote access to secure campus resources such as library data bases or specialized software applications. Since distance learning students are generally unable to visit a public computer lab on campus, several colleges and units have been exploring the possibility of offering virtual lab services to these students. Traditional students who attend classes on campus will also benefit from a virtual lab service, since they will be able to access lab software resources from their own computers without having to visit a physical computer lab. In order to access a virtual computer lab, a student need only install a small client on their home PCs and then connect remotely over the internet to access the same software that would be available if that student were to visit a college lab or public computer lab.

Recommendation

The OAT recommends that the University adopt a virtual lab service. The software that will initially be made available to students is the same as what is currently available in the public computer labs maintained by UCIT, plus any additional software packages that may be required by the participating colleges and units. If colleges or units need to make additional software available to their students, that software can be added to an existing virtual lab computer. In instances where only a limited number of licenses are available, a new virtual lab computer can be created and then made available to a limited number of students.

Implementation

There are significant one‐time costs associated with offering virtual lab services, often several hundred thousand dollars. Rather than each college or unit replicating this service – at an increased overall cost to UC – CECH, CAHS, CoN, LCB, and UCIT have elected to partner to offer this service to all students. The cost for implementing a virtual lab service is $326,841. The colleges participating in the initial pilot group have agreed to reallocate funds that they had committed to providing this type of service locally, with a total commitment of $175,000. This represents a 50% reduction in projected costs to provide this service for each of the participating colleges to provide this service. These colleges have submitted a UC2019 proposal seeking an additional $151,842. (See Appendix B for UC2019 Proposal.)



$151,842

Total $151,842

Table 8 - Costs for Virtual Lab Service

The recommended time frame for implementation is Fall 2012.

9

Design and Pedagogy Quality Matters™ Problem

Quality Matters™ (QM) is a nationally recognized process for ensuring quality in both design and development of online courses. It is faculty driven, based on instructional design research and best practices, and embedded in a process of continuous improvement in online course development. Despite being a Quality Matters™ subscriber institution, only a few colleges at UC have adopted QM standards to ensure their online courses meet nationally recognized principles for quality online course design. There is currently no consistent commitment to QM in terms of overall adoption of the QM principles or in terms of faculty awareness of QM and its standards. In the end, this lack of commitment has the potential to hinder our students’ online learning by not ensuring that the design and development of our online course offerings meet standards for quality. It is imperative that the university adopts a set of standards that ensures quality in both the delivery and design of online courses. By applying the rigorous, nationally recognized, Quality Matters™ standards we can ensure that our online course offerings are of the highest quality design.

Recommendation

We recommend that UC be committed to designing quality online instruction for our students by adopting QM standards and by applying those standards to our online courses university wide.

The responsibility and oversight of applying QM standards to online courses university wide should rest with the new Vice Provost for E‐Learning. This new position will have the following responsibilities regarding Quality Matters™ at UC:

Maintain institutional subscription

Keep up to date with all changes and news

Develop a communication plan to get the word out to all colleges and units

Recruit and manage QM certified trainers

Provide training to UC faculty and staff on an on‐going basis

Manage peer reviewer certification database

Create peer‐review process that facilitates receipt of QM certification for both programs and courses that desire to have this certification

Collaborate with units to support their efforts to adhere to the QM principles

Develop a fund to support financing the certification process for units

Implementation

The cost for implementing this recommendation is estimated to be $10,500 annually as shown in Table 9. This figure represents the cost of QM peer reviewer online training at $35 per person for 300 trained reviewers.



$10,500

Total $10,500

Table 9 ‐ Cost for Quality Matters™

The timeframe for beginning to implement this recommendation is FY13.

10

Creating Standard Online Course Shells

Problem

Approximately 500 online courses are offered at the University of Cincinnati each term. Presently, there is not a single standardized course template or course structure that is applied to all of these courses, other than the default Blackboard template. Each faculty member develops her own look and feel for her courses. The navigation and design in an online course stands in for many of the cues and guidance that is usually provided by the face to face instructor. Having a consistent, standardized look allows a student to navigate a course no matter who the faculty member is. UC is also missing a marketing opportunity by not having a branded course template easily recognizable by students both within and outside of the University. Having a consistent, standardized online course template would not only provide consistency in course navigation for online students and help better brand and therefore market UC’s online courses, it would also provide much needed faculty support. Having an “out of the box” course template to simply insert content into would make online course design and teaching much less stressful for many faculty. It would also be easier to embed instructional design best practices in design and navigation into our online courses. An online course template based on Quality Matters™ would also expose faculty to the standards in the QM rubric, and more quickly and fully integrate QM into the institution.

Recommendation

We recommend that a team of unit instructional designers lead a taskforce and develop a template that can be adopted by the university as a whole. In addition to the unit representation, we recommend presenting the template to the Associate Deans Council so we can incorporate their feedback and have their support. We feel it is crucial to have the support of upper administration for the standardization of the course template.

Implementation

The cost for implementing this recommendation is negligible. The process for creating and deploying specific course templates already exists. Implementation of this recommendation would only involve time and effort in designing the template. Both unit and centralized instructional designers have agreed to commit time and effort to this initiative. The time frame for implementing this recommendation is Spring 2013.

Training Resources for Faculty Teaching Online

Problem

Teaching online is nothing like teaching face‐to‐face. It’s every bit as difficult, but in entirely different ways. Everything from objectives to assessments has to be rethought and retooled for use in the online environment. Faculty who are new to online teaching often feel out of their depth, which makes for a less than optimal teaching and learning environment. Currently at UC, there are a few individual programs offering training to their online faculty, but they are program specific and, in many cases, not scalable. There is currently no on‐going, university‐wide professional development available to provide training to help faculty be successful in teaching online. There are two separate needs in terms of training faculty to teach online: faculty who are teaching online and faculty who are involved in course design. The recommended resources below address these needs differently to accommodate varying levels of faculty needs and preparation. While existing entities have developed these courses, more unit feedback is necessary. These are draft proposals of the courses. Based on unit level feedback and piloting, a more detailed set of descriptions will be developed.

Recommendation

We recommend a tiered system of options for faculty to choose from when seeking professional development in teaching online. The following proposed training activities must all be piloted to establish their effectiveness and appropriate scale. This tiered system would have the following three levels:

11

General introduction: an informational video that introduces the basic principles of course design and including faculty interviews that discuss their experiences with online teaching. This video should be available on CET&L and other faculty development websites. This video should also be part of new faculty orientations. Plans are currently in place to develop this video in Summer 2012. Participant learning outcomes for this General Introduction video are:

o Identification of the key differences between online teaching and face to face teaching o Identification of personal preparation requirements to teach online o Identification of campus support for training for teaching online

Introduction to Online Teaching: a self‐paced, facilitated series of five modules resulting in a certificate of completion and a $50 software purchase credit for the UC bookstore. This self‐paced model is designed to flexibly accommodate different schedules and to introduce faculty to techniques for successful facilitation of an online course. While this course focuses primarily on facilitation, the objectives are based on the standards found in the QM Rubric online course design. This course is currently being piloted during Spring 2012. Participant learning outcomes for this Introduction to Online Teaching are:

o Developing learning outcomes for an online course o Developing one’s pedagogy for an online course o Developing content and activities for an online course o Managing interaction in an online course o Assessing student progress in an online course

Intensive Online Design Seminar: This is an eight week, intensive, facilitated seminar that includes QM Applying the Rubric training and a QM peer review of the participant’s course. Participants should complete the course with a Blackboard shell and syllabus near ready to offer in a course. Participants receive a certificate of completion and a QM Applying the Rubric certification. We recommend that a stipend of $500 in faculty development funds be awarded for successful completion of this course. This course has been offered twice to UC Blue Ash and UC Clermont participants and is currently being piloted university wide during Spring 2012. Participant learning outcomes for the Intensive Design Seminar are:

o Create and effectively organize appropriate readiness assessment activities, student learning outcomes, assessments, and activities for an online course delivered through the Blackboard learning management system.

o Appropriately align student learning outcomes, assessments and activities for a given online course.

o Evaluate and provide feedback on peers' student learning outcomes, assessments, and activities in a supportive manner that promotes effective revision.

There should also be resources recruit and compensate faculty facilitators of the Introduction to Online Teaching and the Intensive Online Design Seminar. A Faculty Development Council Universal Provider Grant was awarded to CET&L to provide stipends and facilitator compensation for these courses beginning Fall 2012. The grant monies requested and received were for the following:

For the Introduction to Online Teaching o 25 participants per term o $2000 for facilitator o $1250 for software purchase credit(we will scale this up for 200 faculty)

For the Intensive Online Design Seminar o 20 participants per term o $5000 for one facilitator or $2500 each for co‐facilitators o $300 for QM workbooks at $15 each or 100 for $850 o $541 for Vai and Sosulski text at $27.05 each o $10,000 for stipends

12

In keeping with our earlier recommendation that UC adopt Quality Matters™ for ensuring quality online course offerings, we also recommend that QM face‐to‐face and online workshops for applying the QM rubric should be offered at one of the UC campuses at least once per term and be open to the entire university community. Up to 30 people may attend each workshop. The University should also consider offering faculty development funding to support faculty who wish to continue their training in QM’s online Peer Reviewer Certification Course. This course costs $150 for consortium members. Finally, there should be a system to recruit and compensate faculty facilitators of the QM Face to Face and Online Applying the Rubric workshops. The AMP allocates additional funding to CET&L for expanding their mission to include more faculty professional development for online teaching and learning. We believe the funds recommended here could be covered in the new budget allocated to that center.

Implementation

The total cost for implementing this recommendation to a larger scale is $102,000 as shown in Table 10.



$102,000

Total $102,000

Table 10 ‐ Cost for Training Resources for Faculty Teaching Online

The recommended timeframe for implementation is Spring 2012.

Streamlined Access to Faculty Development

Problem

Faculty Development at the University of Cincinnati is available through a number of entities. Funding for individual and collaborative professional development projects is available from the Faculty Development Council. Faculty development is also offered by CET&L, UCIT's FTRC, the Academy of Fellows for Teaching and Learning, and the Libraries. The current system has the capacity to promote and assist faculty development around online learning (both for individuals and for groups/units) but does not do so in an integrated and coherent way. In too many cases, there is confusion as to which entity offers which professional development opportunities and as to where to go to find support and resources.

Recommendation

Based on this identified need, the OAT supports the funding allocation from the AMP to the proposed “one‐stop” type portal, or “front end,” for offering faculty support services and development opportunities. Besides eliminating duplication of effort, a single point of contact for professional development will resources easier to locate and use, increase efficiency and coordination, and enable these providers/facilitators to better respond to needs and more effectively target resources and programming to various interests such as online learning. This would also greatly increase the visibility, accessibility, and impact of these resources.

Implementation

The cost for implementing this recommendation is $15,000 and has been allocated in the AMP. The recommended timeframe for implementation is Summer 2012.

13

Student Support New Online Student Orientation Problem

Orientation is an important part of entering college. New students carry with them a large number of questions and concerns. They need help knowing where resources are located, what the important dates on the academic calendar are, and how to navigate campus life. Being an online student only intensifies these concerns. The university has an obligation to prepare all students, those who are physically on campus and those who are not, for higher education so that their time spent at UC is productive and successful. Orientation not only helps to prepare students for success, but also removes the burden placed on faculty to teach technology, answers general questions, and reduces phone calls to the UCIT Help Desk, UC Libraries, Academic Units, and faculty. Presently, UC offers on‐campus orientations at the university and unit level and a number of online programs offer individualized online orientations for their students, but there is no single, university level orientation for online students coming to UC.

Recommendation

We recommend that a required online orientation be developed for all incoming online students to introduce them to the university. This online orientation will be developed by a committee with both central and unit level representation. Some suggested content of this general online orientation would be:

A videotaped welcome to the university from the President or Provost

An introduction to Online Learning, including topics such as time management, what to expect from faculty, how to communicate with your faculty, etc.

An introduction to Blackboard, including an opportunity for students to work with Blackboard to familiarize them with the technology, including how to submit an assignment, participate in a Discussion Board, take a quiz, etc.

Minimum technology requirements for online learning along with access to obtaining that technology

Introduction to UC Libraries that includes a short orientation specific to online learners

Introduction to the Learning Assistance Center and the online services they provide

Introduction to the registration process along with any placement tests needed

Individual colleges and programs may want to develop program or unit specific orientations for their online students, just as many do with their face‐to‐face students. These unit level orientations, however, need not duplicate the larger university online orientation. Implementation

The cost for implementing this recommendation is a one‐time investment of $10,000 as seen in Table 11. These funds were included in the UC2019 Proposal. (See Appendix B.)



$10,000

Total $10,000

Table 111 ‐ Cost for New Online Student Orientation

The recommended timeframe for implementation is Spring 2013.

508 Compliance Problem

Section 508 is a part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires that electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained or used by the Federal government be accessible to people with disabilities. The

14

University of Cincinnati, according to its Web Accessibility web site states that “The University of Cincinnati's mission is to provide a functional, accessible, interactive web experience for all users. All UC Web developers are required to adhere to the Sect. 508 Guidelines as set forth by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board),” (http://www.uc.edu/ucomm/web/accessibility.html). Unfortunately, Section 508 compliance at UC has often been overlooked in online learning content development. The operating principle for providing access to online learning content has been to deal with disabled students on a case by case basis by referring them to the Disability Services Office where appropriate accommodations are made. This puts the onus on the student to self‐identify. Research has shown, however, that students with disabilities often don’t go through the process of self‐identifying. In addition to limited resources in the Office of Disability Services to support students who do self‐identify, we can also be proactive and make Section 508 compliance a higher priority for online learning. By not doing so, not only is UC violating its own policy, we risk loss of federal funds. We also have a moral obligation to serve the needs of all our students, including those who are disabled. No matter the modality, all our students deserve the same support.

Recommendation

We recommend that UC extend the existing Accessibility policy to include content that is developed for online courses. This policy should state our commitment to universal accessibility and include language specific to both web design and online learning content regarding minimum standards and best practices. A partnership between the Disability Services Office (DSO) and CET&L should be developed so faculty can be trained on designing online courses that are 508 compliant. A faculty with this specific expertise should be sought and released 25% to provide this specific training. Oversight would include identifying compliant and noncompliant online learning content and coordinating resources to help units achieve compliance. Resources should include a checklist of standards that must be met and a process for planning how current content can be retrofitted to be compliant. In addition, the DSO must be staffed to provide appropriate services to online learners with documented disabilities. Dr. Debra Merchant has agreed with this recommendation and is willing to oversee the expansion of services to online students with disabilities. A full‐time, 80% FTE position is requested to be added to the existing DSO staff dedicated to serving online learners. This position would also be responsible for educating the UC community about Section 508. Training in testing online learning content for Section 508 compliance should be offered. Detailed explanations of the standards in Section 508 should be available, including specific examples and scenarios, with references to other resources.

Implementation

The cost for implementing this recommendation would be $75,312 annually as shown in Table 12. This includes 25% FTE + fringe benefits for faculty release, as well as 80% FTE staff person, plus appropriate fringe benefits.



$75,312

Total $75,312

Table 12 ‐ Cost for 508 Compliance

The timeframe for implementing this recommendation would be Spring 2013.

15

APPENDIX A Draft Job Description for Vice Provost of Online Learning Description The Vice Provost for E‐Learning has the principal responsibility for providing executive‐level sponsorship and representation for issues concerning online education across campus, while advocating for resources and policies that support quality online teaching and learning experiences. The Vice Provost facilitates greater collaboration and communication across academic and central units by working closely with deans/directors/academic chairs and by convening a collegiate advisory board to ensure unit‐level input and consistent quality across all units. The Vice Provost works regularly with academic and other administrators across campus as well as cultivating and maintaining relationships with vendors, local, and state agencies who are able to support the university’s e‐learning enterprise. The Vice Provost for E‐Learning provides collaborative leadership and consultation for deans/directors/chairs of academic units and faculty to strategically build and deliver e‐learning courses and programs, quality standards and teaching strategies that align with UC’s AMP. The Vice Provost is expected to be an active member of the proposed IT governance team, as well as other academic committees as appropriate. Responsibilities include complex course development projects that sometimes involve external partners and representing the university on appropriate professional boards, councils, and at the state level. Qualifications Earned doctorate preferred and demonstrated excellence in teaching along with extensive instructional experience at a four‐year institution of higher education required. Minimum of three years of experience in e‐learning and instructional design at the postsecondary level. Minimum of three years significant supervisory experience. Administration of online programs desired. Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication skills. Demonstrated capacity/ability/experience/knowledge in the following areas:

Leadership skills appropriate for advocacy and guidance for innovative online course development and instructor training.

Standards‐based approach to quality assurance.

Commitment to using data for strategic decision‐making

Understanding of project management and the use of metrics to identify resource needs and provide accountability.

Application of learning theories, instructional design and outcomes‐based assessment.

Design and production of instructional materials to support faculty.

Knowledge of the functional needs of online instructors, administrators, and students.

Experience teaching online in a college, university, or similar institutional setting

16

APPENDIX B UC2019 Proposal for Online Technology, submitted to Kristi Nelson on 2/29/12

Date: February 29, 2012 To: Kristi Nelson From: Larry Johnson RE: UC2019 Proposal for Online Technologies Kristi, attached is our proposal to be considered for UC 2019 Investment funds. This proposal addresses strategic technology needs in order to sustain UC’s online learning enterprise and build capacity for future growth. The following deans have not only agreed to co-sponsor this important initiative, but the proposal also highlights our cost-sharing strategies in order to create greater efficiencies across all colleges. Michael Lieberman, Dean, UCIT Elizabeth King, Dean, Allied Health Greer Glazer, Dean, Nursing David Szymanski, Dean, Business This proposal has also been endorsed by the Distance and Online Learning Action Team, co-chaired by Lisa Holstrom and Paul Foster. Thank you for considering our request.

A UC2019 Proposal to Support the Technology Needs of Online Education at UC

Proposal sponsors: College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services Lindner College of Business College of Nursing College of Allied Health Sciences Instructional Research and Computing (IRC) Distance Learning and Online Action Team Rationale: As UC reflects on our online education programs, it’s clear these endeavors have moved from a peripheral part of our educational mission to a significant enterprise within the institution. A high level assessment of online education across campus shows that ten colleges offer programs, certificates or courses in this delivery mode. Moreover, in fall 2011, more than 4,000 students from completely online programs were enrolled in online courses, generating almost 33,000 credit hours and over $32MM in gross tuition revenue. The significance of these efforts can be best understood when compared to the scale of some our current colleges. In aggregate, online programs generate revenues and student credit hours comparable to colleges such as DAAP and Nursing and serve as many students as those in the Colleges of Engineering, Business or UC Clermont. Whether an online course is part of an on-campus program or part of a program offered completely online, student demand is increasing every term. Thus, these data suggest our online efforts are substantial and warrant consideration in terms of how we organize and resource this important part of our institutional mission.

Online programs have largely grown through the entrepreneurial efforts of several colleges. These colleges have largely funded their online initiatives by developing their own support systems and technologies or by using third party vendors. UC’s online programs have now reached a scale such that existing and new programs would benefit significantly from both quality and cost perspectives by consolidating our support functions.

Request: This proposal seeks $312,842 in UC2019 funding to secure centralized technology resources that are an integral yet common need for all UC’s online programs. Currently these needs are being met by unit level technology groups or are inadequately funded at the University level due to unprecedented growth in distance learning.

This proposal identifies four technology areas for support consideration, plus some additional funding to ensure all new students are oriented to the new technology before they begin their first class. All of these capabilities are central to online education coursework and programs in existing or emerging programs across UC. Each of these initiatives has the support of the Deans. The four technology areas where support is sought and the estimated costs for each are as follows. These high priority areas were identified by the Blue Ribbon Task Force DL Action team which was co-chaired by Paul Foster and Lisa Holstrom.

2

Centralized Technology Support Requirement

College + UCIT One-Time

Contributions

Requested One-Time Funds

Videostreaming system to provide access to narrated lectures, problem sets, podcasts and other copyrighted materials.

$7,960

$75,000

Web-conferencing software to provide synchronous office hours and interactive sessions.

$20,800 $40,600

Virtual computer lab to support anytime, anywhere access to course software and related technologies.

$250,000 $151,842

Extended Blackboard Help Desk hours for weekend coverage for students and faculty.

$35,400

New Student Orientation for online learners

$10,000

TOTAL REQUESTED $278,760 $312,842

Each of these centralized support requirements is briefly described below. In addition, a detailed technical need and proposed solution is attached. These technical descriptions are not meant to show final technical choices but rather to describe the options, the capacity and longevity of each alternative and the estimated funding needs.

Videostreaming System: Instructors need to be able to share portions of copyrighted audio and video with students in their classes. In campus held courses, instructors can claim fair use and display these files in the physical classroom. Online learning instructors, however, must stream these files over the internet to their students. The current streaming system does not have the ability to restrict access to these audio and video clips to just the students enrolled in the particular class, nor does the current system have a way to prevent students from further sharing these clips with people who are not students in the class.

Web-conferencing System: Online education utilizes a host of synchronous and asynchronous tools to encourage instructor-to-student, student-to-student interaction, and student-to-content interaction. One of the key synchronous tools used to embrace instructor-to-student interaction and student-to-student interaction is web-conferencing. It provides many opportunities for interactions such as virtual office hours, expert guest or panel lecturers and discussions, student group interaction and problem solving, and the ability for the instructor to meet face-to-face or “live” with their class. Some of this capability is available through the Blackboard system; however, those tools are largely restricted to chat features. UC has added desktop-sharing and conferencing capability through a third party product, Elluminate Live, but current usage of this product both by online and traditional courses has well exceeded the capacity of our licenses. As we expand the availability of this collaboration tool we will also explore other technologies in the market that may add better functionality.

3

Virtual Computer Lab: Distance learning students need access to specialized software and technology, such as statistical software, for their coursework and often have to purchase that software, even though UC may already have a license that product. Traditional students can simply visit a computer lab maintained by their college or one of UCIT’s public computer labs. In classes where students may only need to use a particular software package for one or two assignments, it leaves DL instructors in the unenviable position of either imposing an additional cost to their students or searching for less efficacious alternatives.

Extended Blackboard Help: Our online learners study and learn outside the traditional boundaries of our Monday through Friday classes. As such they often need assistance in the evenings and weekends. Our Blackboard team provides excellent support for students and faculty during the work week, but limited resources have constrained their ability to provide adequate weekend support. Additional Blackboard Help Desk support on Saturdays and Sundays will greatly benefit our distance cohorts who are doing a preponderance of their work during these periods.

New Student Orientation for online learners:

Alignment to Academic Master Plan Action Steps Growth of our distance programs directly influences several objectives in the Academic Master Plan. These broadly include goals such as enhancing student learning, optimizing our enrollment targets, and increasing the reach and access of programs with the regional colleges and the untapped international market. Specifically, the action step under “Learning” to “provide students with 21

All students will need to be orientated to the existing and new technologies before their first online course begins. Currently, all academic units have their own online orientation, targeted towards students in online programs. Unit collaboration towards one common orientation would ensure that all online students have consistent preparation for online learning. Faculty report that this orientation enables them to teach content, rather than teach technology.

st

Sustainability

century learning tools” addresses the need for upgrading our current systems as requested here. Student learning in online programs is improved through a richer use of pedagogical approaches which address the multiple learning styles of our students. With online options the learner can fit the instructional approach to their learning strength and can often mix campus and online courses. Online education also allows us to optimize the mix of residential, hybrid and virtual courses increasing the utilization of our constrained people and space resources. Finally, this approach provides opportunities for our distinctive programs to expand into untapped or underserved markets that have not cost effectively or conveniently had access to UC’s programs. Clearly support for the growth of UC’s online programs will positively impact numerous metrics in the Academic Master Plan.

This proposal is a great example of central-academic unit collaboration. While one-time funding is being requested to commence the four separate initiatives in this proposal, each of the participating colleges and UCIT have already contributed, or are willing to contribute, seed monies to several of the initiatives. Because of the expected economies of scale, the overall cost to UC should be significantly less than if each college or unit attempted to offer these

4

services separately, further contributing to the sustainability of each of the four initiatives. Additional benefits to the collaboration are the knowledge-transfers and expertise sharing that will occur within all of the parties involved. Shared ownership will foster a greater likelihood for continued success and reduce the likelihood of lost institutional knowledge. Depending on which videostreaming system is selected, there is great variance in whether the majority of costs are one-time or annual costs. The funding requested in this proposal is based on the overall most expensive solution. The committee making the final selection will be asked to give strong consideration to a solution which minimizes the annual maintenance costs. After the first year, if the usage data warrants continuation of the new videostreaming service and these services are broadly used across campus, requesting ITIE funding will one option to cover any annual maintenance costs However, if streaming services are selectively used by a few colleges, a unit contribution or recharge approach could be explored. Many colleges, including each of the participating colleges in this proposal, have implemented their own web-conferencing systems due to the limited capacity of the centrally supported web-conferencing system, Elluminate Live. Each of the participating colleges and UCIT are willing to shift their annual maintenance costs to the new web-conferencing system, leaving only the one-time up-front costs to be funded by this proposal. Again, economies of scale can be gained by an institutional level of purchasing of the alternative solution. UCIT and multiple other units will share costs based upon need and usage. For the Virtual Computer Lab, much of the required investment is for one-time infrastructure needs. Annual maintenance, which is to be shared by the participating colleges and UCIT, constitutes only approximately 10% of the initial investment. In addition, an approved recharge model will be developed for additional colleges that wish to participate. Once developed, this recharge model will be presented at future meetings of both the IT Managers and Associate Deans. The costs to develop the Orientation for Online Learners are also largely one-time costs. Once the central design is established, academic units will be supporting their own students who are completing the orientation. If individual programs need specialized orientation, those additional modules would be developed and delivered at the unit level. In the case of extended Blackboard hours, data will be collected to establish whether the service is widely used by students in online programs. If the data warrants continuation of the extended hours, ITIE funding will be requested in FY14 to continue the extended weekend hours. The four separate initiatives contained in this proposal are highly sustainable given the willingness of both the participating colleges and UCIT to reallocate funding from existing college and unit based systems to new centrally supported and maintained systems. The funding requested in this proposal is for the one-time startup costs needed to commence each of the initiatives.

5

Videostreaming System

Overview

When instructors need to share large audio or video files with their students, uploading these files to a standard web server or learning management system is not effective because students need to download the entire file before they can begin watching or listening. Even for students who have broadband connections at home, this wait can be an hour or longer depending on the size of the files. Streaming systems address this problem by allowing students to view media files before they have fully downloaded. Within a few seconds or minutes, a student can begin watching a video while their player continues to download the remainder of file in the background. In the consumer market, popular services such as YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu use streaming systems to deliver entertainment to their viewers. UCIT currently maintains two streaming systems for instructors to use: a Windows Media server and the Adobe Flash-based Wowza server. Both systems suffer from several limitations that make them impractical for fully online classes and programs. Neither system has a mechanism to restrict viewing to only the students in a specific class, nor do they have the capability to prevent further redistribution by students. Because the current systems do not contain support for these restrictions, UC cannot take advantage of the copyright exemptions provided for by the TEACH Act. This limits instructors to uploading only content that is in the public domain, or content which UC or the instructor own the copyright to.

Furthermore, neither of the current systems are truly cross-platform, nor do they support the automatic conversion (transcoding) of media files into alternative formats. If an instructor has a digital video in Windows media format, they must manually convert that file to additional formats to ensure that students with Macs or tablets are able to view the files.

The centrally supported systems do not have the ability to track the number and duration of streams by viewed by students each term, so potential replacement systems were sized based on the current hardware configurations plus configurations used at similar institutions. Several colleges and units that currently maintain their own streaming services may wish to move their streaming services to the centrally supported system, particularly if the selected system allows colleges and units to develop customized interfaces. The selection committee will need to take these criteria into account when choosing and sizing the best streaming system for UC’s needs.

Options

UCIT solicited information and preliminary quotes from several vendors that offer streaming systems, including Ensemble, Kaltura, SymposiumLive, and VBrick.

1. Kaltura – http://corp.kaltura.com/. While this represents the most expensive solution surveyed, Kaltura has a well-established customer base that includes both major TV networks as well as higher education clients. Locally, Columbus State Community College, Northern Kentucky University, and Ohio State have licensed products from Kaltura. This system can be configured to be TEACH Act compliant and can be integrated with the major learning systems, including Blackboard.

Cost: The cost for Kaltura depends on the specific options selected, but is estimated to be no more than $75,000 per year. For comparison purposes, the cost to Columbus State Community College is approximately $50,000 per year. It is important to note that vendor estimates that full implementation of their product can take 1 – 6 months.

http://corp.kaltura.com/�

6

2. Ensemble – http://ensemblevideo.com/. There are both locally hosted and cloud-based options for Ensemble, and each option offers support for transcoding and integration with both the Blackboard and Moodle learning systems. Ensemble has a number of higher education clients, including Syracuse University, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and several SUNY schools. While Ensemble offers support for accounts, permissions, and even LDAP integration, it’s not yet clear whether this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the TEACH Act. Further investigation is needed. Cost: The annual cost for the 2Tb hosted solution is $24,000 per year.

3. SymposiumLive – http://www.symposiumlive.com/. This solution is a hosted-only solution which offers support for transcoding, integration with Blackboard, options for Section 508 compliance, and TEACH Act compliance. Cost: The vendor only provided quotes for their entry level system, which is a hosted solution with 1Tb of storage and 1Tb of data transfer per year. The cost for this solution is $10,000 per year, although it’s unlikely the base system will be sufficient for UC’s needs.

4. VBrick – http://vbrick.com. This vendor offers a number of media solutions, including capture and streaming solutions. While they don’t currently offer integration with Blackboard, their systems are used by a number of higher education clients, including the University of Connecticut, Vanderbilt, and Oklahoma State. Further investigation is needed to determine whether this system is TEACH Act compliant. Cost: The first year cost is $68,197.52, with annual maintenance of $10,914.75 per year.

Implementation timeline

Because the cost for several of the surveyed systems is above the bid amount, not all of the systems are on a State Term Schedule, and a request for a bid waiver based on sole source is unlikely to be approved, it’s likely that an RFP will have to be issued. Here’s an approximate timeline for implementation:

• Create central committee with unit input to draft RFP (April 2012)

• Solicit proposals from vendors (April – May 2012)

• Score vendor proposals (early June 2012)

• Complete purchase (late June 2012)

• Implement system (July – August 2012)

http://ensemblevideo.com/�

http://www.symposiumlive.com/�

http://vbrick.com/�

7

Web-Conferencing System

Online education utilizes a host of synchronous and asynchronous tools to encourage instructor-to-student, student-to-student, and student-to-content interaction. One of the key synchronous tools used to embrace instructor-to-student interaction and student-to-student interaction is web-conferencing. It provides many opportunities for interactions such as virtual office hours, expert guest or panel lecturers and discussions, student group interaction and problem solving, and the ability for the instructor to meet face-to-face or “live” with their class. Some of this capability is available through the Blackboard system; however, those tools are largely restricted to chat features. UC has added desktop-sharing and conferencing capability through a third party product, Elluminate Live, but current usage of this product both by online and traditional courses has well exceeded the capacity of our licenses. As we expand the availability of this collaboration tool we will also explore other technologies in the market that may add better functionality.

Overview

UCIT's current web conferencing service is Elluminate Live!. The software is in need of an update, and we're currently limited to 50 concurrent users, so there is an immediate need to increase our capacity. Rather than simply continuing with Elluminate Live!, we can take this opportunity to re-evaluate our web conferencing service and obtain the best fit for our community.

It is difficult to estimate the actual demand for web conferencing services but it is known this technology is used by both our traditional classes as well as for our online cohorts. Demand for web conferencing services for online students can be projected by counting the number of online courses and the students they serve. That number is estimated to be 500+ courses and 4,000 students per term. While not all courses and students will use this tool, many will especially for online courses. In addition, web-conferencing is increasingly being recognized as a versatile tool for use in our traditional classes. For example, one College is using this tool for virtual help sessions and another to support their research activities. Thus, the system specifications were developed accommodating a larger audience.

1. Upgrade our current Elluminate Live! license.

There area several options available:

Elluminate Live!, along with Wimba, was recently purchased by Blackboard. The combined product is now called Blackboard Collaborate, and it is available in various capacities. We have the option of continuing to run it locally on our own servers, or having Blackboard host the service for us on their servers. Sample annual costs are:

- $26,300/year for 500-1000 authorized users. - $39,600/year for 1000-2000 authorized users. - Other price points are also available.

8

2. Change to Adobe Connect. Some UC colleges have obtained licenses for Adobe Connect on their own, so the product already has a presence on campus.

Sample costs are:

- $7,195/year for 50 named host licenses, each accommodating up to 100 participants in a single session. (This would have to be sized to match the number of instructors that want to participate.)

- Additional 10-packs of named hosts are $1,349/year. - The same service (100 named hosts) running locally is $30,600 in year one,

and then $5,100/year after that and an additional one-time $10,000 for hardware. For a total cost of $40,600. 3-year cost is about the same either way, but the locally-hosted option would be less expensive after that.

3. Change to Microsoft Lync. The UCIT Email group is going to be upgrading UC's

Exchange system to Exchange 2010, with plans to have it in place in time for the start of fall semester 2012. Our Exchange 2010 license includes Microsoft Lync, so we can use this software for no additional cost. However, we will need to evaluate its functionality to see if it will meet the needs of our instructors.

• Create a central committee (with unit input) to determine best product - Spring 2012

Timeline for Implementation

• Complete UC Purchasing Procedures to purchase product – Summer 2012

• Create communication plan to announce and train on new product – Summer 2012

• Implement new product – Fall 2012

9


Since distance learning students are generally unable to visit a public computer lab, several colleges and units have been exploring the possibility of offering virtual lab services to these students. Traditional students who attend classes on campus will also benefit from a virtual lab service, since they will be able to access lab software resources from their own computers without having to visit a physical computer lab. In order to access a virtual computer lab, a student need only install a small client on their home PCs and then connect remotely over the internet to access the same software that would be available if that student were to visit a college lab or public computer lab. There are significant one-time costs associated with offering virtual lab services, often several hundred thousand dollars. Rather than each college or unit replicating this service – at an increased overall cost to UC – CECH, CAHS, CoN, LCB, and UCIT have elected to partner to offer this service to all students. Based on the usage in traditional computer labs, such as UCIT@Langsam, and the population of DL students, it is estimated that capacity for 500 concurrent users should be sufficient to meet the initial needs of the DL students for the next 3 years. UCIT has already purchased an IBM Blade Center and five blades in preparation for offering virtual lab services on a limited basis, so the additional one-time investment required is $326,841.65. The colleges participating in the initial pilot group have agreed to reallocate funds that they had committed to providing this type of service locally, with a total commitment of $175,000. We are seeking an additional $151,842 in UC2019 funds. The software that will initially be made available to students is the same as what is currently available in the public computer labs maintained by UCIT, plus any additional software packages that may be required by the participating colleges and units. If colleges or units need to make additional software available to their students, that software can be added to an existing virtual lab computer. In instances where only a limited number of licenses are available, a new virtual lab computer can created and then made available to a limited number of students. First-level support will be provided by student workers at service desks within the participating colleges and units. Full-time staff within the colleges/units will provide second-level support, and UCIT system administrators will provide third-level support. Shared documentation will be created so that the experience is the same for students no matter what virtual lab they are using.

1. VMware –

Options

http://www.vmware.com/. VMware is widely recognized as the leader in server virtualization. Their vSphere will be the virtualization platform used on the hardware to host, and deliver the virtual systems to students. VMware Virtual Center is the management/control software for the vSphere servers. VMLogix Lab Manager software will also be implemented to ease the delivery of virtual machines to students. Normally this addition would cost tens of thousands of dollars depending on usage, but is now available free to higher education institutions.

http://www.vmware.com/�

10

Cost: Estimated cost of hardware and software licenses are $401,841.65 in year 1, and $36,986.65 in years 2+.

2. Citrix – http://www.citrix.com/. – LCB has explored the possibility of using Citrix as their virtual lab solution, but found that the cost to implement was too high, and that the features provided were not as advanced as VMware.

• Internal beta testing (Spring quarter 2012)

Implementation timeline

• Small scale testing (Summer quarter 2012)

• Available for use by students in CECH, CAHS, CoN, and CoB (Fall semester 2012)

• Full implementation (Spring semester 2013)

http://www.citrix.com/�

11

Extended Blackboard Help Desk hours

It’s no surprise that the learning management system, Blackboard, is critical for effective learning in online education. The system is a key enabler for course activities including content delivery and collection, communication, interaction and assessment. Blackboard must provide seamless transfer of documents in numerous formats, access to video streams and downloads, and fast and flawless uploading and recording of assignments. Furthermore, it should facilitate communication and interaction not only between the student and the faculty, but also among peers. Finally, assurance of learning is not complete without assessment and the tools in Bb provide a host of ways to measure that learning and skill development.

Overview

The effectiveness of these course processes and thus the student learning experience is significantly affected by the students’ and faculty’s facility with Blackboard. Many of our online students are full-time working professionals enrolled in online programs because of their flexible access and extended reach. Work demands of these students often require they do their course preparation in the evenings and weekends. Therefore, their use of Blackboard often falls outside the primary support hours for this system. Indeed, weekend users of the system have few help resources and must rely on online help resources, their peers or the instructor. These difficulties could be particularly problematic when students are doing assignments that are time-dependent such as quizzes or timed assessments. Finally it’s easy to suggest that course problems can be addressed the next work day, but this often results in an unexpected late night or extra set of weekend course tasks for our part-time cohorts.

Faculty interaction in online courses tends to mirror the rhythm of the student learners. While most of the course content will be uploaded prior to the beginning of the course, instructors will be facilitating interactions, chatting with students and conducting assessments during the term. This means they’re also using Blackboard on the weekends and need support when faced with technical difficulties.

Current weekend Blackboard Help are available on weekdays from 8 am to 11:00 pm and Sundays from 4:00 – 11:00 pm. Work week help is satisfactory to the extent our users are local or regional. As our online programs extend their reach domestically or internationally, these hours may be less satisfactory. The most glaring shortfall in Blackboard Help is support on the weekend. Students and faculty are in need of that support now especially for time-critical activities.

The Blackboard Help resources are heavily used. Over the past year, the Blackboard team responded to more than 3300 emails and phone calls per month. Many of these help requests were between 10 am and 5 pm but evening calls were also significant, averaging about half or a third of the day time means.

The Help Desk is typically staffed by student workers. These consultants are compensated about $10 per hour plus 10% benefits. A shift would usually include at least 2 consultants and a

Options for Extending Blackboard Help

12

shift supervisor. The supervisor would be paid about 10% more than the student consultants. The options for extending Blackboard support include the following:

1. Saturday: 8 – 11pm $7,700/sem a. 2 consultants X 15 hrs X $10/hr X 1.10 X 15 weeks b. 1 supervisor X 15 hrs X $11/hr X 1.10 X 15 weeks

2. Sunday: 8 – 4 pm $4,100/sem

a. 2 consultants X 8 hrs X $10/hr X 1.10 X 15 weeks b. 1 supervisor X 8 hrs X $11/hr X 1.10 X 15 weeks

3. Saturday and Sunday - Options 1 & 2 $11,800/sem

Annual Cost $35,400

Augmenting our current Blackboard Help Desk resources is largely a staffing requirement. It is estimated that identifying, hiring and training additional student consultants would require about 2 months. Increasing shift supervision may require more training for the individual but this is unlikely to delay ramping up this resource. Phone, other technical equipment and space needs are adequate to handle adding extended weekend support.

Timeline for Implementation

13

New Student Orientation for online learners

Orientation is an important part of entering college. The University has an obligation to prepare students so impediments to learning are minimized and time spent in class is productive and successful. For new UC Freshmen, Bearcat Bound has introduced new students to UC systems, policies, and technologies, before their first class begins. This reduces the anxiety new students often feel and ensures they are prepared to meet the challenges of college life and learning.

Overview

When a course or program is online, that anxiety may intensify. However, Bearcat Bound is an on-campus program, so online students do not attend. In addition, the online student needs training in accessing online software and resources, academic advising, and acclimation to Bb and online learning in general, which may all be presented to on-campus students in Bearcat Bound, or by the faculty in their first few classes, but which the online student does not receive..

In recognition of this need, some individual units have allocated resources to develop and deliver online orientations for their new students. There is an inconsistency in how these orientations are run, developed, and the content within each. Online students in other colleges do not receive orientation. These differences translate to very inconsistent student learning experiences from college to college. Faculty experiences also differ greatly, as one set of students approaches online learning ready to learn content, while another group will need significant technology support during their first course, because an online orientation was not available to them.

A single Online@UC online orientation needs to be developed for all new online students. This online orientation will meet the needs of all online learners of the university. Units are willing to participate in a centrally-convened committee to identify desired learning outcomes across all UC online programs. Once the orientation is developed centrally, there will be no additional one-time costs, except for minimal annual updating. Some suggested content of the general online orientation would be:

Option

1. Welcome to the university from President Williams or Provost Ono 2. Introduction to Online Learning, including time management, what to expect from faculty,

how to communicate with your faculty, etc. 3. Demonstration of Blackboard and other specific technologies most students will need,

for example, access to virtual computer lab. 4. Minimum technology requirements along with access to receiving that technology 5. Simulation opportunities for students to apply their new Blackboard skills before their

grade depends on them, including how to submit an assignment, participate in a DB, take a quiz, etc.

6. Introduction to the Library that includes a short orientation to using their different systems specific to online learners

7. Introduction to the Learning Assistance Center and the online services they provide 8. Introduction to the registration process along with any placement test needs 9. Identification of other processes and systems, like checking student bills, access to

Disability Services, plagiarism training, where to find help, etc.

14

Spring 2012: Units identify common learning outcomes

Implementation Timeline

Summer 2012 - Fall 2012: Designed centrally

Spring 2013: Implementation across colleges

Appendix A – Extended costs

Year 1 Years 2+

Options

Projected Cost

UCIT Contribution

College Contributions

Requested UC2019 Funding

Projected Cost

UCIT Contribution

College Contributions

ITIE Requests

Web-conferencing system 1 $40,600 $20,800

$40,600 $5,100 $5,100

Elluminate Live! $39,600

Adobe Connect (local) $40,600

Adobe Connect $13,940

Microsoft Lync $0

Videostreaming system 2 $83,960 $7,960

$75,000 $75,000 TBD $75,000 Kaltura $83,960

Ensemble $24,000

SymposiumLive $10,000

Vbrick $68,197

Virtual Computer Lab 3 $401,842 $75,000 $175,000 $151,842 $36,987 $36,987 VMware $401,842

Citrix

Online orientation $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0

Extended Bb support $35,400 $35,400 $35,400 $35,400 Option 1 $20,925

Option 2 $11,160

Options 1 & 2 $35,400

Total $571,502 $103,760 $175,000 $312,842 $152,487 $5,100 $36,987 $110,400 1

Web-conferencing System

The Elluminate quote is for 1000 concurrent users. Both Adobe Connect options are based on 100 named hosts with up to 100 users per host

UCIT is currently spending $20,800/yr on Elluminate license that can be reallocated 2

Videostreaming system

UCIT has already purchased a pair of servers with 3 years of support that should offer sufficient capacity 3


HW and SW configuration contains capacity for 500 concurrent users UCIT's investment to date consists of $68,000 in HW, plus $7,000 in VMware licenses for up to 30 concurrent users

In year 1, CoB to contribute $60,000, CECH to contribute $50,000, CAHS to contribute $50,000, and CoN to contribute $15,000 In years 2+, CoB to contribute $12,681, CECH $10,568, CAHS $10,568, CoN $3,170

Distance and Online Learning Support Action Team …...ii Distance and Online Learning Support...

Documents

Transcript of Distance and Online Learning Support Action Team …...ii Distance and Online Learning Support...