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.

Section 3. Guidelines for online course development

The Online Course Committee, composed of faculty, established these guidelines to assist an instructor when developing an online course.

All copyrighted materials used as part of any course must have acknowledgement of the material’s creator. There are a number of Web sites that elucidate the use of copyrighted materials. One such site is http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html. (To determine Educational Use you may want to skip to http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-b.html)

Instructor Fully Developed Online Course (IFDOC)

This type of course is ready to deliver fully online. All course content material is developed by the instructor. This does not necessarily include images or audio that may be needed as part of the course.

• An online course will consist of the following five components.
• Less than or equal to five face-to-face meetings
• May include an orientation meeting
• May include course labs
• Meetings are agreed between the instructor and Chair
• Assessment
• Course Content
• Syllabus
• Student-to-student and student-to-instructor interaction, which can be accomplished using any combination of the following means
• Chat
• Instructor must schedule two hours per week per course
• These two hours are in lieu of office hours
• Discussion
• Activities
• One of the five components can come from a publisher or courseware developed source (as an example, assessment)
• This component is agreed upon between the instructor and Chair

Web-enhanced course

This type of course features online enhancement of traditional course content delivery by implementing some, but not all, of the components listed for IFDOC. The guidelines for these components will follow the guidelines for IFDOC. Once the course implements all of the components for IFDOC, the instructor is eligible for incentive payment. This revision from “Web-enhanced” to IFDOC will be subject to review and agreement with the department Chair.

E-Pack/Publisher or courseware developed course

This includes any course that has been developed by a text publisher or courseware developer. It can be used by the instructor to enhance a course or deliver a fully online course. This type of course is not eligible for the Web-based course incentive payment.

Section 4. Additional recommendation for online courses

During the course of developing the Web-based Course Incentive Proposal and Guidelines for Online Course Development documents, the OLC Committee had additional comments and recommendations that didn’t necessarily fall under the aforementioned sections. The Committee would like to forward the following recommendations.

Faculty

1. Administration should strongly consider adding a software module to WebCT Vista that will allow the instructor and students to have synchronous online interaction. To this end, the Committee reviewed two programs:
• Centra (http://www.centra.com/solutions/education.asp) (Editor's Note: As of March 30, 2010, this website appears to no longer exist.) and
• WebEx (http://www.webex.com/solutions/conferencing-overview.html). Both programs have the capability to allow synchronous audio and video interaction and recording of those interactions, as well as shared applications, while conducting an online class. There are other programs, such as:
• Elluminate (http://www.elluminate.com/products.jsp) and
• Wimba (http://www.horizonwimba.com/products/liveclassroom/) on the market that have similar functionalities. Dr. Robert Mayes, of West Virginia University , has expressed a willingness to talk about sharing the WVU Centra program with GSC classes in exchange for a contribution to the salary of a technical person who would help with the Centra classes. We also understand that Marshall University and other West Virginia institutions are exploring a site (state-wide?) license for Wimba. We therefore strongly recommend that GSC actively explore the possibility of obtaining use of one of these programs.
2. Feedback from the faculty indicates strong interest in online course development, but also expresses concern regarding training. To this end, we recommend the following:
• Re-implement the faculty-training program for online course development (see Example below).
• Publicize whom the faculty needs to contact to get courses or sections created.
• Publicize who will conduct training, when and where.
• Consider offering one-on-one training to assist faculty who are timid about online course generation.
• Utilize experienced faculty as mentors to assist others with creating online courses, especially exploring the different methods of student assessment.
• Encourage knowledgeable faculty to share experiences, both good and bad, and make suggestions for what worked and what didn’t work in the online course.

Example — Professional development program for teaching online

New (possibly all) faculty must complete this program. The training course consists of a one-week WebCT orientation and a five-week online instructional design course. This valuable training not only prepares the instructor to teach in the online world, but it also orients the instructor to the online learning model. It also helps us evaluate the instructor’s “online personality” and approach towards students. The training course is offered at no cost and is an unpaid experience. The eight to twelve hours spent each week in this training course will make the instructor more effective and prepared. It is important to be sure that, prior to starting the training course, the instructor’s commitment to teaching for Glenville State College is sufficient to make time for this course. (adapted from http://www.davenport.edu/tabid/367/default.aspx)

3. Faculty want to know if all of them must develop an online course. Set a deadline for a completely online degree offering (like the Associate’s in Arts in General Studies). The proposal suggests Fall of 2007. If that is a definite goal, let the faculty know. Additionally, add online course development as a contract or hiring criterion when recruiting new faculty.
4. Consider adding the Certification programs as part of the online offerings.
5. Some faculty have expressed concerns that some courses are not suited for online course development. We recommend that the faculty member and departmental Chair review, discuss, and mutually agree on this point for the courses in question.
6. We do not recommend that a faculty member be allowed to only teach an online course developed by another instructor. We feel that this would put undue burden on the developing instructor as the faculty member would not have experience to add, modify, or change the online course to suit her or his wants or needs.
7. We recommend that the Office of Technology
further explore automatically populating the student class list once the course is ready and online.
8. While minimum course enrollment numbers were outlined in the Web-based Course Incentive Proposal, maximums were not addressed. Therefore, we recommend that course enrollment maximums be discussed and decided upon between the instructor and Chair.
9. A concern expressed was that technology sometimes becomes unavailable and an alternate access to course materials should be available. We therefore recommend that the Administration, in conjunction with the Office of Technology, implement a backup strategy for online courses. For example, create a shared drive where the instructor who creates the online class will have an alternate place to put class materials besides the WebCT Vista server. Or alternately, the instructor will be required to put class materials on e-Reserves. We recommend that this be completed during the second semester of online class delivery.

Existing or prospective students

1. Student computer skills were a concern for some faculty. Therefore the Committee recommends a small mini-course be developed, using Course-Maker, that can be accessed from GSC’s Web page. This mini-course will help the student selfassess whether their computer skills are adequate to take and complete an online course. We believe this may help alleviate concerns of a nontraditional student seeking to return to college.
2. We recommend open access to a sample WebCT course so that a prospective or current student can see how a course might be structured, organized, and conducted. Again, this is to help the student assess if an online course is the appropriate educational venue for them.

Section 5. Online course suggested marketing strategies

At our last OLC Committee meeting, we invited Ms. Cinda Echard (Professor of Marketing) and Ms. Allison Minton (Public Relations). Our purpose was to seek assistance with potential marketing strategies that GSC might use to increase the awareness of online courses offered. With the assistance of Ms. Echard and Ms. Minton, we were able to identify five different strategies that GSC might use. Those strategies include focusing on:

1. Course sampling or non-degree online courses, followed by
2. Online general education courses that may transfer to other institutions, and
3. Online courses that can culminate in a full degree. Other areas of administrative investigation may prove effective for additional venues to market GSC online courses, such as:
4. Third party pay, and
5. Certification offerings. All of these are discussed more fully below. There are three factors which GSC may capitalize on for the suggested marketing strategy.

Economics: In light of the higher automobile fuel prices, this strategy may be appealing for the lowincome and non-traditional students. Additionally, GSC’s tuition rate is exceedingly cost-effective when compared to other in-state institutions, even when factoring in the online course technology fee. Further, GSC’s out-of-state tuition costs may be less than some in-state tuition costs at other states’ institutions.

Time: This is a limited commodity for everyone. Taking an online course will allow students to manage their time according to their needs. This self-management of their time may especially appeal to the nontraditional student. Also, as pointed out in the Webbased Online Course Incentive Proposal, offering courses online will increase the scheduling flexibility of the traditional student.

Location: Taking online courses does not dictate on-campus attendance and will easily fit into any student’s busy schedule. This may play into the economic factor as well. Again, this may be especially appealing to the non-traditional student.

Course sampling marketing strategy

This may be the initial step in marketing strategy for GSC online course offerings.

Focus: Getting GSC’s name associated with online course offerings.

Audience: Primarily the current GSC student population.

Strategy: Any courses offered online can be an IFDOC, e-Pack, or Web-enhanced.

Delivery: A write-up in GSC’s newspaper, The Phoenix, course schedule, course catalogue, messages on hold, main voice mail greeting, GSC’s main Web page, blogs, radio spots, and ads in local papers.

Transfer marketing strategy

This may be the second-step marketing strategy for online course offerings at GSC. It is suggested that GSC may market itself as a less-expensive, yet fully accredited alternative to higher priced educational institutions.

Focus: The online course credits earned at GSC are fully transferable to other in-state institutions. Naturally once a student is enrolled, the object will be to keep the newly enrolled student from transferring to another institution.

Audience: The non-traditional student and the lowincome student.

Strategy: Courses which are fully transferable, or for which GSC has matriculation agreements to other institutions, should be developed for online delivery. Courses offered online can be an IFDOC or e-Pack.

Delivery: A write up in GSC’s newspaper, The Phoenix, a department placing an ad touting its online course offering (may be paid for by the course fee generation), course schedule, course catalogue, messages on hold, main voice mail greeting, GSC’s main Web page, blogs, radio spots, and ads in local papers.

Degree marketing strategy

This may be the third-step marketing strategy for online course offering at GSC, which will ultimately lead a student to attain a two- or four-year degree.

Focus: The attainment of a degree through online course credits.

Audience: The non-traditional student.

Strategy: Courses which lead to attaining fully accredited degree(s). Courses offered online can be an IFDOC or e-Pack. Courses offered will also enable a traditional student to attain a degree.

Delivery: A write up in GSC’s newspaper, The Phoenix, a department placing an ad touting its online course degree offering (may be paid for by the course fee generation), course schedule, course catalogue, messages on hold, main voice mail greeting, GSC’s main Web page, Internet search engine, blogs, radio spots, and ads in local papers.

Third party pay marketing strategy

It was suggested that GSC previously had relationships with the State of West Virginia’s Workman’s Compensation and State Employment/Unemployment departments. Re-establish or strengthen those relationships. Be sure to include updated online course offerings to the Workman’s Compensation Education/Re-education and State Employment/Unemployment contacts. While Workman’s Compensation and State Employment/Unemployment cannot show preferential treatment to GSC, nevertheless they can be made more cognizant of GSC’s offering which may be more appealing to the non-traditional student.

Focus: To enhance and bring forward GSC as an attractive option for education or re-education of West Virginia’s workforce.

Audience: The non-traditional student.

Strategy: Courses which lead to attaining certifications or progress toward a degree; courses and certifications offered online can be an instructor fully developed online course, e-Pack, or Web-enhanced.

Delivery: Items suggested previously, but also include sending notifications directly to Workman’s Compensation Education/Re-education and State Employment/Unemployment contacts.

Certification program marketing strategy

Glenville State College has developed some certification programs that are currently being utilized at the Federal Penitentiary. These certification programs may be useful to the general population to enhance or update skills and education.

Focus: To enhance and bring forward GSC as an attractive option for skills and education enhancement for West Virginia’s workforce.

Audience: The non-traditional student.

Strategy: Courses which lead to attaining certifications or progress toward a degree; courses and certifications offered online can be an instructor fully developed online course, e-Pack, or Web-enhanced.

Delivery: The items suggested previously, but also include sending notifications directly to employers as professional development certification program(s) that they cannot provide themselves.

Comments from faculty

Table 1 lists all comments solicited from faculty regarding online course creation. The Categories of Feedback column indicates the types of concerns expressed by Faculty. The Number column only indicates the number of times different faculty indicated a given category. The Responses column indicates which section addressed the concern.

Comments

Login or subscribe 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!

Extended Learning Content Management

10/17/11

Instructional design approaches and authoring tools generally embed a certain structure and flow in the resulting eLearning. This creates problems when a designer wants to repurpose content for a different set of learning objectives, or for a different instructional strategy. An extended learning content management system avoids these issues. Read about this concept here!