How We Did It: A Complete Web-based Course Proposal

Glenville State College (GSC) is a small, four-year liberal arts institution tucked in the Appalachians in central West Virginia. As with many other institutions, GSC is trying to stay abreast of the changing needs and composition of its student body. To this end, GSC administration encouraged its faculty to start developing courses for delivery online.

Part of the encouragement came as a monetary incentive proposal, called the Web-based Incentive Proposal, which was less than enthusiastically received as it was felt that some disciplines could not take advantage of the incentives. The GSC administration, sensitive to faculty’s comments, then formed a faculty-based committee to revamp the proposal and requested inclusion of goals, suggestions, and comments. The committee was called the Online Course (OLC) Committee. This document is the result of the committee’s efforts.

Section 1 delineates the goals established by the OLC Committee.

Section 2 describes the proposal, along with a monetary distribution plan for faculty, faculty’s department, and the technology department.

Section 3 establishes the definition of what is expected for class development.

Section 4 describes additional recommendations to GSC’s administration that were not addressed in the original Web-based Incentive Proposal.

Section 5 gives a cursory plan to GSC’s administration on how to market these online courses, once developed.

Table 1 delineates all comments to the OLC Committee regarding faculty concerns with developing online courses.

Section 1. Online course committee goals

The following goals were set by the OLC Committee:

1. Restructure the Web-based Course Incentive Proposal
1. Revisit section allocation
2. Redefine so that classes with labs can be included
3. Redefine fee allocation based on criteria set forth
2. Define the required initial structure for a Webbased course in order for a professor to receive the design monetary incentives. Enhancements may be used to enrich course development with course refinement (for example, software such as Elluminate or Centra or others).
3. Define “who owns the course.”
4. Discuss with different departments what concerns professors have regarding online class development or use. The following are areas designated to OLC Committee members to solicit these concerns.
1. Business
2. Land Resources and Math/Science
3. English and Fine Arts
4. Education and Physical Education
5. Academic Support
6. Social Sciences
5. Examine how GSC will be able to make online classes more marketable to students as opposed to taking courses from another Higher Education college or university.

Section 2. Web-based course incentive proposal

The purpose of this proposal is to implement a process to increase the number of Web-based courses offered by GSC in order to remain competitive with other institutions around the state. This would effectively require every department to institute some Web-based courses by Fall 2006. The resulting proposal goals include:

1. Having the Associate of Arts degree in General Studies fully Web-based by the Fall of 2007 semester
2. Increasing scheduling flexibility thereby meeting the needs of students, especially non-traditional students
3. Increasing student enrollment

Rationale

Increasing the number of Web-based courses offered by GSC has the potential to increase our student FTE, as well as provide additional educational opportunities and respond to an ever-increasing competitive market.

Discussion

On a weekly basis, potential students contact GSC inquiring about Web-based course offerings. Current offerings at GSC do not meet the demands, and our market is increasingly forced to choose other competitor institutions, including Fairmont State University and Marshall University in particular. There have been instances where our own students are taking courses through Fairmont State University via the Web. While we engage in a debate about issues related to the quality of online courses in general, other institutions are moving forward with online programs and reaping potential GSC students. Students will either take online courses here or somewhere else. It would seem that our goal is that GSC students take online classes here so that we can monitor and ensure the quality of online offerings through our institution and provide educational opportunities to an ever-increasing market.

Process

1. Course fee structure
1. A student user fee will be assigned for online courses
1. Per semester for an instructor fully developed online course (IFDOC — defined in Guidelines for Online Course Development)
2. Per semester for e-Pack, publisher or courseware courses
3. Student will be assessed the higher fee if taking both an e-Pack and IFDOC within one semester
2. Fee assessment to begin Fall 2006
3. Instructor stipend (see Item 2. below)
4. Course Fee Balance Distribution (see Item 3. below)
2. Online Course Development Stipend Payment
1. Any instructor (faculty member or adjunct) can develop an online course
2. Each course instructor who develops and teaches an online course will receive a stipend for the first semester that the course is offered and 10 or more students are enrolled in the course.
1. The stipend will be prorated for a course developed that enrolls less than 10 students.
2. Offering a course with less than 10 enrolled students must be agreed upon by the instructor, the departmental Chair and the Vice-President of Academic Affairs.
3. The stipend payment is in addition to the instructor’s regular payment.
4. The course is considered part of regular faculty load.
5. If the faculty member qualifies for an overload, s/he will also receive overload pay for the course.
6. Web-enhanced courses (defined in Section 3. below) are not eligible for course development stipend payment.
7. Off-the-shelf e-Pack, publisher or courseware courses (defined in Section 3. below) are not eligible for online course development stipend payment
8. Course Copyright
1. Once instructor accepts course development payment, GSC owns the course
2. If course development payment is not accepted, the instructor owns the course
3. Course Fee Balance Distribution
1. After instructor stipend is paid:
1. One-half of the balance goes to the instructor’s department.
2. The second half of the balance goes to the Office of Technology.
2. If the instructor does not accept the stipend payment, the course fees collected will be distributed according to 3. a. i. and ii., above.
4. Review process will go in the following order:
1. Department Chair
2. Vice President of Academic Affairs
3. Curriculum Committee
5. After the first semester of online course delivery:
1. Instructor payment will be per student enrolled in each IFDOC.
2. Course fee balance distribution will be according to Item 3. above.

Proposal offering review

Because GSC’s technology usage and online class enrollment numbers are unknown, this proposal is valid for one academic year, beginning in the Fall of 2006. In the Spring of 2007, the proposal, fee structure, and instructor payment(s) will be re-evaluated for effectiveness and be subject to revision.

Comments

Login to comment

Related Articles

Microsoft's Sales Marketing Services Group Readiness Increases Quality Through Consistency

3/8/08

Any e-Learning organization should spend time and effort to identify ways to improve the service it provides to its customers. However, this is often easier said than done, especially when the organization outsources design and development. In this article, you will find a blueprint for the process that an internal Microsoft group used to deal with these issues.

From Classroom to Computer: A Case Study of Drastic Change Part 1

5/21/07

Many training groups are facing the challenge of moving their instruction from classroom to online or blended formats. Imagine the challenge of being the person who, single-handedly, must lead the transition, design the instruction, manage the LMS, and facilitate change management efforts involved in transforming a very conservative sales training approach to a very streamlined, efficient model!

Strategy as Process, Not Product: The Learning Value Chain

12/7/09

When you begin putting together a curriculum, do you get a question back for every question you ask, rather than the recommendations and suggestions you hope to hear? Do you have trouble getting people to listen to your proposals — the very people you are trying to help? Developing a true strategy that offers value may solve these and many other problems. Here’s how to create one.

You need to upgrade your Flash Player
This interactive requires Flash Player version 7 or higher.