docushare3.dcc.edudocushare3.dcc.edu/docushare/dsweb/get/document...web viewreport to delgado...

Final BOR Grant Review 1

Report to Delgado Community College on Board of Regents Enhancement Grant

Submitted by Joyce A. Langenegger, PhD, JD

For Delgado Community College, as for almost every other person or entity in

contemporary New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina and the levee breaks severed the past from the

present. For Delgado that severance took the form of a shift to online learning. A college that had

fewer than 10 per cent of students enrolled in online classes pre-Katrina, with a limited number of

faculty prepared to deliver instruction in that medium, suddenly could only deliver classes online. In

the months immediately following Katrina, displaced faculty in remote locations taught displaced

students in equally far-flung sites. This heroic action is recognized as crucial to the survival of the

institution that is Delgado Community College.

Some faculty members whose classes were already online felt constrained by a system that

wouldn’t allow them do what they were prepared to do. Others moved tentatively ahead in

developing an online presence as they taught their courses. The result in one instructor’s view was

that he had created “an independent study for which [he] served as the online secretary.” Faculty,

staff, and administrators recognized a need for more faculty training in the development and

delivery of online classes.

Background. In the post-Katrina world of Delgado approximately 25% of students enroll in

online classes, a percentage that has remained constant over the past few semesters. Because of

increased enrollment, however, the actual number of students taking online classes has escalated.

This increased enrollment in online courses, coupled with a desire to afford students the highest

quality learning experience possible, resulted in several changes within the institution.

Through its revised Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), required by Delgado’s accrediting

body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), and a Board of Regents Grant

(BOR Grant), faculty, staff, and administrators at Delgado sought to improve the student learning


experience in online courses. One approach to meeting this goal was through enhanced and targeted

training for faculty who teach online. A goal of the institution’s QEP was to create a highly trained

corps of online instructors, who could then train other faculty members. A goal of the BOR Grant

was to provide funding for the development and implementation of online and face-to-face courses

to meet some of these training needs, and thus institutionalize quality training for both online and

face-to-face instructors.

Over the five-year period of the QEP, a total of 40 selected faculty members are expected to

participate in a graduate-level certification program, Teaching in the Virtual Classroom (TVC)

developed and taught through Fielding Graduate University. Participants in the TVC-certification

program are also expected to (1) provide assistance to other faculty members in developing their

online instructional skills and (2) obtain Quality Matters certification for at least one online course.

Quality Matters, administered by the University of Maryland, is a national certification program

requiring peer review and approval of online courses. To date, twenty-nine Delgado faculty

members have obtained TVC certification and twenty-seven courses have achieved QM

certification or have been submitted for certification. Participants report the TVC training and the

QM-certification process enhanced the quality of their instruction both in their online courses and in

their face-to-face classrooms. Additionally, administrators report higher student satisfaction levels

in QM-certified courses and fewer student complaints.

BOR Grant. The Board of Regents Grant to develop a comprehensive training program for

online instructors had three components:

Developing an in-house competency-based curriculum to train online and face-to-face

instructors (Component 1);

Creating courses in-house for the curriculum (Component 2); and

Implementing the courses for online teaching (Component 3).


The faculty development program for online instructors developed by Valencia College in

Florida served as the model for Component 1. Additionally, the competency-based model for

student learning and related workshops that were developed as a part of a U. S. Department of

Education Title III grant (Title III Grant) provided a framework for the faculty development

curriculum contemplated by Component 1.

Component 2 focused on the development of courses for delivery to faculty both in online

and face-to-face formats. A total of three courses were to be developed (BOR Courses). The content

areas that underlay the Valencia courses were to be incorporated into the BOR Courses. Course

developers were to be TVC-certified faculty. This approach was to constitute the first step in the

train-the-trainer model conceived both by the QEP and the BOR Grant.

Implementation through piloting the newly designed courses was the goal of Component 3.

The courses were to be made available to faculty who taught online or in face-to-face formats. A

potential post-BOR Grant outcome was identified as the development of “Digital Professor” and

“Master Teacher” certifications again patterned on an existing program at Valencia. The

certification program would include, but not be limited to, the courses developed through the BOR

Grant.

Methodology. The findings in this report are based upon a number of resources. They

include both interview and document sources. From June 9-10, 2011, I conducted face-to-face

interviews with staff, faculty, and administrators at Delgado’s City Park campus (n=17).

Additionally, I conducted a telephone interview (n=1) on June 20, 2011. Participants were asked to

identify aspects of the BOR Grant and faculty development that had succeeded and some of the

challenges they saw with either program. They were also asked to provide their historical

perspective of faculty development at Delgado. Some follow-up e-mail correspondence followed

the on-site interviews. I reviewed all online courses developed as a part of the BOR Grant,


including both assignments and discussion boards. Among the documents I reviewed were the BOR

Grant, QEP assessment reports, Title III Final Report, assorted documents related to curriculum

review and mapping, QM and Sloan Consortium web sites, working papers on faculty development

for distance learning, and Delgado Policies and Procedures.

The analysis of data followed a hermeneutic approach. Hermeneutics is a method of analysis

that seeks to achieve an understanding of what people and documents are saying. Interview

transcripts and documents were reviewed to interpret meaning and through comparison identify

patterns that appeared in descriptions of programs, successes, and challenges.

Findings. Delgado appears to have satisfied the key elements of the BOR Grant. An

advantage Delgado enjoys is support from administrators, faculty, and staff for professional

development and this program in particular. In their interviews a number of individuals cited

initiatives in other areas of the college as complementary to the program developed with BOR Grant

funds. No one, including Delgado’s Interim Chancellor, views the BOR Grant and its products as

an end point, rather they are described as a transitional step moving Delgado to the next level in

providing high-quality, cost-efficient, and learning-effective instruction to Delgado students.

Component 1 (Curriculum Design) The BOR Grant, as originally written, contemplated a

curriculum designed to incorporate seven “streams” that are present in the Valencia faculty

development curriculum (Valencia Model). Delgado, however, operates with a four-part

competency-domain model (Delgado Model). The Working Papers for the BOR Grant include a

mapping of faculty development courses, including the BOR Courses. This curriculum mapping ties

to the Delgado Model. Coherency exists between the Valencia Model and the Delgado model. Table

1 represents a crosswalk of the elements of the Valencia Model to illustrate where they reside in the

Delgado Model.


Table 1. CrosswalkValencia Model-Streams Delgado Model-Competency DomainsLearning technology/Alternate delivery Technical competencyTheory-based practice/Course design Application of learning theory and

instructional designAssessmentActive and collaborative learningStudent success Communication and behavioral skillsInclusion and diversityApplied scholarship of teaching and learning Professional skills

The Delgado staff has moved beyond curriculum mapping and course design to consider key

courses and a developmental process for faculty development. The proposal provides a three-year

plan for a faculty member’s professional development program, culminating in achieving in-house

certification as a Digital Professor/Instructor (for online instruction) or Master Teacher (for face-to-

face instruction). It also includes a process map that offers a visual representation of how

individuals move through the faculty development program to achieve the same level of proficiency

through in-house delivered courses as TVC-trained faculty have acquired through more expensive

external training. At least one faculty member expressed concern that although training should be

designed as a “cohesive program,” it should not be a “master plan.”

Component 2 (Course Design) The BOR Grant provided for the development of three

courses by TVC-certified faculty. To date, five courses have been designed. Four of these courses

were designed by TVC-certified faculty. The fifth course was prepared by a recognized in-house

expert on learning theory, who is also a QM-certified course reviewer. These courses include

Online Course Design with QM (QMM)

Critical Thinking in the Classroom (CT)

Learning-Centered Theory and Practice (LCTP)

Assessment for Learning (ASSMT)

Collaboration and Inclusion (CI)


Each of these courses has been mapped to the Delgado Model competency domains. A

review of the curriculum map reflects that all elements of the Valencia Model streams are

embedded in one or more of the BOR Courses. Table 2 illustrates the linkage among the Valencia

Model streams, the Delgado Model competency domains, and the BOR Courses.

Table 2. LinkagesValencia Model Streams Delgado Model Competency

DomainsBOR Courses

Learning technology/Alternate delivery

Technical competency QMMCI

Theory-based practice/Course design

Application of learning theory and instructional design

QMMCTLCTP

Assessment ASSMTActive and collaborative learning CIStudent success Communication and behavioral

skillsQMMCTLCTPASSMT

Inclusion and diversity CIApplied scholarship of teaching and learning

Professional skills QMMCTLCTPASSMTCI

One issue that became apparent from a review of the development of the BOR Courses was

the difference between the low estimate of course-development time included in the BOR Grant (45

hours) and the actual time required to develop a course. Of the three course designers interviewed,

all three reported their development time exceeded 45 hours. Two designers believed future courses

would require less time to develop. One of these interviewees noted that he spent approximately a

year learning the content for his course (in an area he elected to explore), approximately 45 hours

designing the original course, and a substantial amount of time that he did not quantify redesigning

the course once he began teaching it. The other course designer noted that although she had


designed a number of online courses within her teaching discipline, those courses were structured

by the accompanying textbook. Her faculty development course allowed for much greater design

freedom and required her to identify appropriate resources to support the course’s learning goals.

She reported spending well in excess of 45 hours to design the course, but she noted that she

believed her next course could be designed much more quickly. One issue she noted was the

solitary aspect of course design and the lack of having someone “to bounce ideas off of,” while also

observing that she believed those individuals would have been available to her had she asked. The

third course designer stated her course took four months to design and did not suggest that any

subsequent course would take less time to design.

Active participants in the course development structure contemplated by the BOR Grant and

their respective roles included

The Director of the Office of Faculty and Staff Development to identify learning outcomes,

instructional design, and assessment from a pedagogical perspective;

The Dean of Distance Learning and Information Technology to identify learning outcomes,

instructional design, and assessment from a pedagogical perspective and to contract with

course designers;

The Learning Outcomes Specialist to confirm coherence between learning outcomes and

desired competencies and to confirm alignment among outcomes, assessments, and

activities;

The Committee on Institutional Effectiveness to confirm the program was coherent and

aligned;

The QEP Coordinator to consult on curriculum design;

The Director of Institutional Research to assist in developing assessment tools;


The Director of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Technology to assist with

instructional design;

The TVC-certified faculty to provide feedback on courses and develop courses; and

The Director of Public Relations to market the program to faculty.

Several staff changes occurred during the term of the BOR Grant which may have altered

the course-development process. These changes included

The resignation of the Director of the Office of Faculty and Staff Development;

The transfer of the QEP Coordinator responsibilities to the Dean for Distance Learning and

Instructional Technology and to a faculty member;

The restructuring of the responsibilities of the Learning Outcomes Specialist after Title III

ended;

The merger of functions of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness into other offices; and

The hiring of an instructional designer.

As a result of these changes, the process for course design was also altered. TVC-certified

course developers identified gaps in existing curriculum for online training. They then developed

courses to fill those gaps. The individual who had been the Learning Outcomes Specialist and the

Project Director worked with these individuals to develop standard course syllabi that would map to

the Delgado Model competency domains. At least one faculty developer reported utilizing the

Instructional Designer to assist with course development. Each developer piloted or plans to pilot

the course he or she designed. One faculty member left the college prior to the piloting of her

course. The courses were marketed by sending e-mails announcing their availability to all Delgado

faculty members.

Interviewed faculty members who developed BOR Courses reported they volunteered to

create their courses because of an interest in the topic or a sense that this service was one they


should provide the college after its investment in their TVC certification. The staff member who

prepared a course was the recognized in-house expert on her topic. All individuals interviewed

stated they would be willing to design additional courses for this program. It should be noted that

faculty were compensated for their work on this project. The staff member was not.

Component 3 (Implementation) Of the five developed courses, three have been piloted with

faculty. Distance Learning and Instructional Technology staff indicated the other two will be piloted

during the 2011 fall semester. The three courses that have been piloted are

Online Course Design with QM;

Critical Thinking in the Classroom; and

Learning-Centered Theory and Practice.

Two instructors expressed concern regarding course attrition. Reported numbers of those

expressing an interest in a particular course were higher than actual participants. Additionally, the

limited use of discussion boards by course participants in these two courses disappointed the

instructors. This factor was critical because the only form of engagement for the courses was

through the discussion boards.

The third course, “Online Course Design with QM,” was designed by a faculty member no

longer with the college. Although the original course design contemplated extensive use of

discussion boards, the facilitator only utilized the discussion boards for the first two course sessions.

She then provided one-on-one online assistance to participants who were attempting to achieve QM

certification for their courses. Table 3 provides a comparison of attrition levels for the three courses.

Table 3. Course AttritionSignificant Stages Online Course

Design with QMCritical Thinking in the Classroom

Learning-Centered Theory and Practice

Reported number of individuals expressing interest

Unknown 20 12

Number of students posting in first unit requiring posts

8 17 5


Number of students posting in last unit requiring posts

7 4 2

Reported completers of all course requirements

7 (with 1 still in process)

4 3

It is important to note that each offered course was redesigned to some level after its initial

placement online. As noted above, the original designer of the “Online Course Design with QM”

left the college. Based on postings on the Discussion Board page, she intended to make full use of

the Discussion Board. She posted a number of questions for each week of the course. The instructor

who taught the course shifted to a mentoring format and posted key concepts for consideration on

the Announcements page. Additionally, the course was originally designed as a 12-week course, but

the Course Syllabus describes it as a 7-week course. The “Critical Thinking” course was originally

designed as an 8-week course to begin at the first of March and conclude by May 9th. Although the

course syllabus suggests that the course was open to faculty and staff, the course designer stated he

had not anticipated any staff members would register for the course, so he assumed a certain level

of knowledge about pedagogy and other topics. When a staff member enrolled, he modified the

course to meet her needs as well as those of faculty members. The course itself was reduced to three

units with the final participant posting occurring on May 30th. The “Learning-Centered Theory”

course was originally designed as a five-module, five-month course that began in November 2010

and was to be completed by March 2011. The final posting was made on May 15th. Other than

extending the time for participation, no other adjustments appear to have been made to course

structure or content.

Neither the “Assessment” course nor the “Collaboration and Inclusion” course has been

taught, although they have been designed. It is my understanding they will be piloted during the

2011fall semester.


The interviews and document review reflect that Delgado faculty and staff designed,

developed, and implemented courses for online faculty as a result of the funds provided through the

BOR Grant. Faculty and staff gained valuable information during the development and

implementation of these courses. Administrators report that officials from other Louisiana

community colleges have expressed interest in having their faculties participate in these courses

once the Digital Professor/Instructor program has been fully developed. Table 4 reflects the current

status of the BOR Grant together with concerns raised in interviews or course assessments.


Table 4. Current Status of BOR Grant GoalsGrant Goal Current Status Product ConcernsDesign competency-based curriculum for online teaching.

All curriculum has been mapped to link competencies and domains to specific courses.

Faculty Development Program and Curriculum Mapping Competency Domains, Indicators, and Courses

Sample Faculty Development Curriculum and Continual Improvement for Online Course Delivery

The level of prescriptiveness of the program curriculum.

Create courses for curriculum. Five courses have been created. Four by TVC-certified faculty members and one by a content expert.

Online Course Design with QM

Critical Thinking in the Classroom

Learning-Centered Theory and Practice

Assessment for LearningCollaboration and Inclusion

The length of time required to design courses.The need to modify courses during the pilot.

Implementation of competency-based curriculum for online teaching.

Three of the courses have been fully piloted.Initial enrollment was 30.Completers totaled 13 (with 1 still in process).Both faculty and staff members took at least one of the courses.

Course CompletersOnline Course Design with

QM-7 completers who have submitted courses to QM (2 certified/5 revision) and 1 completing course for QM review

Critical Thinking in the Classroom-3 completers

Learning-Centered Theory and Practice-3 completers

Recruitment attempts netted 40 people who expressed interest in taking the courses, but only 30 people participated at any point.Some individuals indicated they would take the course in a different semester when their workloads were lower.Some participants noted the amount of time required to complete the course was a problem.Course participants did not participate on Discussion Boards to the extent the instructor had hoped.Retention and completion numbers reflect a high drop-out rate.


Recommendations. The institutionalization and expansion of the curriculum initiated

under the BOR Grant appears to have strong support throughout Delgado. Planning and research

are underway with regard to the structure and implementation of a program to certify online

instructors (Digital Professor/Instructor Curriculum) and another to certify face-to-face

instructors (Master Teacher Curriculum). The Digital Professor/Instructor Curriculum and the

Master Teacher Curriculum are jointly referred to as the Certification Curriculum. The ongoing

development of the Certification Curriculum reflects Delgado’s commitment to move forward

with this program. Strong support, human resources, and planning does not equate to

development and implementation without challenges.

Strengths Administrators at all levels, faculty members, and professional staff with

whom I met identified the need for faculty development in the areas addressed by the BOR

Courses as well as other courses currently available or planned by the Office of Faculty and Staff

Development. Faculty development directors report that administrator support is the most

essential element to assure success for faculty development programs (Pchenitchnaia, 2007).

Within each category of interviewees, people recognized a positive difference in quality of

instruction and student outcomes from TVC-certified faculty members. The expansion of the

Digital Professor/Instructor Curriculum will allow additional instructors to learn similar content

to that delivered by Fielding Graduate University. The cost of the in-house program will be much

lower than the externally delivered courses. TVC-certified faculty and midlevel administrators

consistently reported that TVC training improved an instructor’s teaching performance and

student learning outcomes both online and in face-to-face classes. The development of the

Master Teacher Curriculum will extend the impact of this training even further.


The initial courses that were designed under the BOR Grant provide a strong foundation

for the development of the Certification Curriculum. Each provides an in-depth analysis of its

topic area. As demonstrated by the modifications made in courses from their initial posting and

based on interviewee responses, the course developers remain open to adapting their courses to

best meet the needs of their participants. At least two of the courses provide an opportunity for

one-on-one coaching from the instructor: “Online Course Design with QM” and “Learning-

Centered Theory and Practice.” The “Critical Thinking in the Classroom” course includes a

capstone experience of designing a critical thinking activity for classroom use. This project as

well could provide one-on-one coaching opportunities. The “Assessment for Learning” course

could easily add a mentoring element by having instructor/students design and implement an

assessment. Due to my limited review of the “Collaboration and Inclusion” course, I am unable

to comment on the existence of coaching in this course.

As an extension of the QEP and Title III initiatives, the BOR Grant and the Certification

Curriculum are solidly grounded in existing programs that are viewed positively by those I

interviewed. The further development of the Certification Curriculum fits within Delgado’s

Strategic Goals for 2011-2016, most specifically Goal 1: Increase Opportunities for Student

Access and Success, E. Develop non-traditional teaching models. As an extension of the QEP

and an embodiment of the institution’s Strategic Goals, the Certification Curriculum is well

positioned to obtain financial resources for continued growth and development.

The interest in this program expressed by administrators at other colleges suggests the

possibility that program costs could be shared with other public colleges and universities within

Louisiana and packaged and sold to institutions in other states. A certification program that


extends beyond Delgado would enhance the prestige and portability of this credential. This

potential could support making the certification meaningful and beneficial to participants.

Having someone coordinate the Certification Curriculum project on a full-time basis is

critical to its continued success. The utilization of a lateral move to fill the position of Director of

Faculty and Staff Development was a significant action. The individual who fills this role is

well-respected by faculty members and other colleagues throughout the institution. She enjoys

strong support for her efforts from her direct supervisor and other administrators. College-wide

support, financial and human resources, the potential for the expansion of the program beyond

Delgado, and project leadership are all strengths of the program.

Challenges Of greatest concern with regard to the implementation of the BOR Courses,

and likely issues for the implementation of the Certification Curriculum, are the dual problems of

low enrollment and high attrition. These issues are not subject to easy resolution. Just as a

leader with no followers is no longer a leader, a program with no participants is no longer a

program.

The developers of the two courses that had the highest attrition rates expressed concern

about the low levels of participation in the discussion boards even by those who remained in the

courses. Both noted that persons expressing an interest in the course, as well as those who did

not complete the course, identified time restrictions as an issue. Both noted they would be

rethinking and redesigning their courses to account for the low levels of participation on the

discussion boards.

Lessons for modifications to these courses may also be found in the design and delivery

of the “Online Course Design with QM.” This course appears to have been altered to follow a

coaching/mentoring model with high levels of one-on-one instructor-student consultations. The


“Learning-Centered Theory and Practice” course utilized this same framework for the final

project. Success in the “Online Course Design with QM” course offered an identifiable product

(a QM-certified course) that was meaningful to the participants. Successful usage of the

coaching-mentoring model to assist faculty trying to obtain QM-certification were identified by

other instructors. One instructor described how she made available to her colleagues her

proposed class, comments from QM-peer reviewers, and her revisions. The same instructor noted

she had worked one-on-one with other faculty members on their courses. The Instructional

Designer described a number of one-on-one consultations with faculty members as a way of

delivering information. “Just-in-time” instructional models as well as mentoring approaches

should be considered as alternative delivery formats for, or at least comprise some of the

elements of, all BOR Courses.

Creating a course that instructors perceive as beneficial and worth the required time and

effort is more problematic. A number of issues complicate this matter. The time factor appears to

be crucial to the decisions of many instructors who expressed interest in a course offering, but

did not enroll, or enrolled and did not complete the course. A sample of these individuals should

be interviewed to gain deeper insight into their rationale for not enrolling in or completing a

course. The time commitment was even raised by one individual who did complete a course. An

understanding of what instructors want from a course and what would enhance faculty

perception that a particular course or curriculum is meaningful or beneficial to them is critical to

increasing enrollment and retaining students.

Research studies support the idea that adults, and especially professionals, “learn what

they feel is important to them” (Parsell & Bligh, 1996, p. 284). A part of the rationale for

offering the “Critical Thinking” course was faculty demand. When surveyed in 2010, faculty


members identified training in “developing student critical thinking skills” as their area of

highest interest. Yet, when the course was offered only four individuals engaged in the course,

and only three were faculty members. Because of the immense time investment by course

developers, consider researching in greater detail what type of training instructors want. For

example, do they want strategies or activities they can use in the classroom? Do they want to

understand theory? Based on the commitment to the “Online Course Design with QM” and the

limited time available to faculty, instructors may be more instrumental in their learning goals—

wanting a product they can put to immediate use. To that end, identifying what faculty members

really want from a course or a program becomes critical to its design.

Additionally, one theory of adult learning suggests that adults take advantage of learning

opportunities when they have excess energy or power to deal with the demands of their lives

(Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). With this framework in mind, it is important to

stay attuned to the rhythm of teaching. Courses offered toward the end of a semester may be less

likely to attract faculty members because of the end-of-semester time commitments in their

teaching.

The length and depth of exploration within courses may also be an issue. The curriculum

map for these courses identifies different levels of proficiency that are developed within the

courses including foundational, in-depth, and applied mastery levels. Consider designing courses

to follow the natural breaks in sophistication that have already been identified. Participants might

be more willing to make a three-week commitment to complete a course module, than a three-

month commitment. This approach is consistent with the theory that underlies learning contracts

in which students and teachers negotiate for a minimum level of performance and then provide


opportunities to enhance a student’s grade and learning through the student’s completion of

additional activities (Parsell & Bligh, 1996).

As noted by several individuals in their interviews, the program must include a way for

enrollees to “CLEP-out” of courses or modules in which they are already proficient. Assessment

modules or tasks must be designed to measure skill or knowledge. Course designers must decide

if any credentials other than testing will satisfy this requirement. Conversely, decisions must be

made on what level of pre-requisites must be satisfied before someone is allowed to enroll in a

course. At least one course designer encountered a student he believed was under prepared for

the course. He believed the student’s lack of knowledge altered the way he taught the course. If

pre-requisites are instituted, some alternative way for a student to satisfy the pre-requisite

requirement should be developed.

Concern exists with regard to faculty motivation for taking courses. Even in these

difficult economic times, compensation of either time or money may be required. A few

instructors have an internal motivation to take courses. As one of the interviewees remarked, “If

they offer a workshop, I’m there.” This attitude seems somewhat rare. Those who are more likely

to respond to external motivation must see a direct benefit from pursuing a course. In addition,

consider some form of acknowledgment in which instructors who successfully complete a BOR

Course are recognized and have an opportunity to share their learning with others.

The designs of the BOR Courses either currently address or have the potential to address

some of the issues noted above. In addition to embedding mentoring and coaching opportunities

within each course, opportunities for incentives and recognition may also be present in the

current system. In most instances, based on my limited time on campus, I am able to identify

potential partners for a particular course. Those with more knowledge of campus resources and


organizations will, I am certain, be able to identify other potential collaborators. Consider ways

to engage these partners into an active alliance with the BOR Courses. Table 5 identifies the

elements that appear to have contributed to the successful retention and completion of the

“Online Course Design with QM” and suggested additions to all courses to enhance retention

and completion. Following Table 5 is a discussion of the Curriculum Certification program

anticipated by the BOR Grant and currently under development by the Office of Faculty and

Staff Development. Many of the concerns raised in this section apply equally to the

establishment and sustainability of the Curriculum Certification program.


Table 5. BOR Course Elements and RecommendationsElements QMM LCTP CT ASSMT CIOne-on-one coaching

One-on-one coaching for most of course for QM certification of a course.

One-on-one coaching for final product of Action Research plan.

Potential for one-on-one coaching in current capstone of developing a critical thinking activity for class. Provides for peer coaching.

Potential for creating an assessment activity for classroom use.

Potential in activity development (may already be embedded in course).

Meaningful product

QM certified course Action research plan Critical thinking activity

Assessment activity (Potential)

Collaborative learning activity (Potential)

Incentive Required for participants in TVC-certification program

Possibility of submission to Mini-grant program.Consider collaborating with Mini-grant program, so that projects developed in this course receive funding.

Recognition

Consider recognition at Convocation if not already done.

Consider presentations (poster sessions, panels, or workshops) at Convocation and if funding is available, attendance at a Conference to present.




Participant pool

TVC-certification participants

Faculty at all levels, but most likely more experienced faculty

Faculty at all levels, possibly staff members based on initial enrollees

Faculty at all levels, but new faculty, in particular

Faculty at all levels

Potential partners

QEP program Committee on Professional Development

Deans and Department Chairs

SOAR


With regard to the Curriculum Certification program, identifying and resolving barriers to

success should begin in the design phase of the project and continue through implementation. A

broad cross-section of the college, including known detractors, should be convened before

design work continues. These individuals should be charged with providing meaningful input

into both design and implementation. This report identifies different opportunities to involve

faculty, staff, and administrators. Doubtless, there are many others. A front-end effort spent

surfacing and addressing controversial issues will be much more likely to lead to success than

will avoiding them. A limitation of this study is that everyone with whom I spoke was supportive

and heavily engaged in the institutionalization of the BOR Grant. Therefore, this report does not

address concerns of those who oppose or are neutral about the project.

Among the issues that should be addressed are those related to time commitments and

rewards. With no incentives to engage in the program other than a desire to learn, the likelihood

of success in recruiting and retaining faculty is low. If the administration is committed to the

successful implementation of the Certification Curriculum, resources will need to be devoted to

encouraging faculty to enroll in the courses. Otherwise, faculty are receiving the message “This

program is important, but you have to make the sacrifice of time and energy to do it. It’s not

important enough for the college to give you the time or any other incentive.” An additional

alarm is raised by the low response rate to the TVC-certification program this year. Reluctance to

enter a program provided by an external source, that those who have taken it argue was

transformational to their teaching, and that affords a portable credential does not bode well for

the success of an in-house Certification program.

To gain support for devoting financial resources to the Certification program, the in-

house program should be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. In addition to the cost savings that


will be generated by the completion of the QEP and the elimination of the annual cost of the

TVC-certification program, the analysis should include a cost-per-seat calculation of differences

in expenses between virtual students and face-to-face students. Both TVC-certified instructors

and midlevel administrators report that the TVC training results in a higher quality course or

product. Offering quality courses that are recognized as such can provide a competitive

advantage in recruiting future students. The pressures of the GRAD Act should likewise be

considered, because a failure to improve student outcomes could result in a loss of funding and

autonomy. The connection between better training and better student outcomes needs to be

documented and communicated both to upper-level administrators who control funding resources

and faculty and midlevel administrators who control participation.

Both administrators and faculty members referenced the promotion policy in discussing

the role of professional development courses and the Certification Curriculum. A view expressed

by some faculty members was that under the previous promotion policy faculty received

recognition for participating in professional development activities, but no punishment for a

failure to do so. Some administrators expressed the view that the promotion policy should

become more punitive for a failure to participate. Delgado is currently reviewing its promotion

policy. Attempts to raise the importance of participation in faculty development as a part of the

faculty evaluation process will require strong faculty support, especially among those who

remember the previous policy. This limitation strengthens the argument for the development and

marketing of the Certification Curriculum to other institutions. The ability to acquire a portable

credential may be important to some faculty members.

The BOR Grant suggested an outcome of completion of the Digital Professor/Instructor

Curriculum would be to advise Academic Deans of those in their divisions who have completed


the program. It is critical to recognize that Academic Deans currently have primary responsibility

for identifying and scheduling faculty for online classes. It is essential to involve the Academic

Deans in determining the standards and process for certification. Instructors who have achieved

TVC-certification are viewed as assets by midlevel administrators I interviewed, in part because

these instructors experience fewer student complaints and higher student satisfaction levels. If

these administrators’ reactions are consistent with their peers in other divisions, high levels of

support for the Digital Professor/Instructor Certification program should exist. Failure to involve

these administrators, however, will likely result in high levels of resistance based on a perceived

undermining of their autonomy. Scheduling and course preferences for those who complete the

Digital Professor/Instructor Certification program, so long as this effort has the support of faculty

and midlevel administrators, would create another benefit for obtaining certification.

Efforts should be made to develop a uniform and consistent Web presence for all

Certification Curriculum courses. The current BOR Courses lack this consistency. Especially if

Delgado officials intend to capitalize on the possibility of marketing this curriculum to other

institutions, it will be necessary to “brand” the courses in a way that makes them distinctive and

uniform. All banners should be the same and the same types of information should be available

behind each. Logos and headers should be consistent and irrelevant material should be deleted

from the course sites. Future course developers should follow the same procedure. Currently, one

of the BOR Courses exists in a different platform from all others. Once Delgado determines its

platform choice, all courses should be migrated to the same platform.

Resources must be made available to compensate those who design and teach future

courses. Whether the institution provides stipends or course releases, the time demands for

course development and teaching are substantial. As a result, some form of compensation, either


time or stipends, must be made to those who develop Certification Curriculum courses. Based on

descriptions of the solitary aspects of course design and the barrier that isolation presents, efforts

should be made to provide social support to those who are developing courses. This support will

require a careful balance so developers will feel they are being supported and not harassed.

The Certification Curriculum may be most appealing to new faculty members who are

entering classrooms with little or no training in pedagogy. In their first year of teaching,

however, this group will likely have the most time constraints. Consider ways to engage these

faculty members early in their careers in ways that tie them to the Certification process without

over burdening them in their first year of teaching.

Grouping participants into cohorts who move through the program in tandem and can

provide social support to each other should also be considered. So long as the program remains

in-house, a few opportunities to meet face-to-face at least once a semester should also be

provided. Some studies, and Delgado’s own findings in its Title III report, suggest that a

compelling reason for faculty members to participate in professional development programs is

the ability to network with and learn from colleagues (Breckenridge, 2009; Steinert, et al, 2010).

Anticipating this motivation and responding to it could prove helpful in retaining students.

Based on experiences with the BOR Courses and the TVC-certification program, time

will be a deterrent to faculty participation in the Curriculum Certification program. Just as the

BOR Courses might be divided into levels, so too the certification process could be structured to

reflect an individual’s proficiency level. For example, completing all foundational-level modules

in the curriculum could be defined as Level 1 Certification. Someone who had completed all

levels of all courses in the curriculum could earn Level 3 Certification.


Collaboration with faculty, as well as deans and department heads, will be essential in

developing the Certification Curriculum. As one administrator noted, “if faculty agree it must be

done, it will be done.” Balancing the desire for a structured curriculum with the flexibility to

adjust to shifts in learning needs will require frequent input from many sources. Research on

effective faculty development programs indicates that the support of deans and department heads

is critical to encouraging faculty members to participate in professional development programs.

In an effort to engage more Delgado instructors in the Certification Curriculum, and to

support the marketing of the program to other colleges, the Public Relations Department should

be utilized. This department should assist in developing brochures, providing stories to internal

and external media about instructor and program accomplishments, and in general “spreading the

word” about this program. Although face-to-face marketing and the respect other instructors

have for those teaching the courses is a highly effective way to recruit individual participants, a

broader appeal needs to be devised to reach all members of the college community.

The sustainability of the BOR Courses and the further development and implementation

of the Curriculum Certification program face an array of challenges. Those challenges are

counterbalanced by a number of strengths. With the BOR Courses as a foundation, the program

can build from a group of well-designed courses delivered by instructors who have the respect of

their colleagues. One of Delgado’s greatest strengths, based on my on-campus experiences, is the

commitment of everyone I interviewed to live Delgado’s learning-centered mission for the

benefit of its students. The BOR Courses and the Certification Curriculum are a recognized part

of that mission, and as such, should be sustained and expanded. Table 6 includes the concerns

and recommendations for the design, course development, and implementation of the

Certification Curriculum.


Table 6. Concerns and recommendations for Certification ProgramGoal Concerns RecommendationsDesign competency-based curriculum for Certification Program.

The level of prescriptiveness of the program curriculum

Engage a cross-section of college faculty and administrators, especially including detractors, to assist with curriculum design

Create courses for Certification Curriculum.

The length of time required to design courses

Provide compensation to developers/instructors either with time or stipends consistent with effort

Provide social support to developers during development phaseImplementation of competency-based Certification Program.

Low enrollment Engage a cross-section of college faculty and administrators, especially including detractors, to assist with implementation

Collaborate with all constituenciesDocument relationship between training and outcomes to encourage participationIdentify what faculty members really want from their trainingUtilize Public Relations Department to assist with marketing and media

High attrition Develop a coaching-mentoring model for some courses or modulesProvide an identifiable, meaningful product as a course outcomeProvide “just-in-time” learning modulesInclude at least one face-to-face meeting opportunityIdentify course-prerequisites and ways to satisfy requirement

Time required to take course

Develop different proficiency levels within coursesProvide a system for “CLEP-ing out” of courses

Lack of incentives for participating

Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to locate potential resourcesDocument relationship between training and outcomes to support funding requestsProvide time or monetary incentives for participationProvide some form or acknowledgement or recognition for participationConsider relationship between training and promotion, but only after engaging

faculty and midlevel administratorsConsider relationship between Digital Professor/Instructor Certification and teaching

online, but only after engaging faculty and midlevel administratorsTiming of course offerings

Identify the “rhythm of teaching” to coordinate course offerings with periods with lower time demands on faculty members

Expansion Market Certification Curriculum to other institutions within and without LouisianaMake all course architecture and Web design uniform to “brand” the coursesUtilize Public Relations Department to assist with marketing and media


Partial List of Works Referenced

Delgado Resources

Board of Regents Support Fund Enhancement Program. (2009). Development and implementation of a comprehensive (competency based) faculty development curriculum program.

BOR Course. Assessment for learning (web-based course).

BOR Course. Collaboration and inclusion (web-based course).

BOR Course. Critical thinking in the classroom (web-based course).

BOR Course. Learning-centered theory and practice (web-based course and assessments).

BOR Course. Online course design with QM (web-based course).

Breckenridge, A. (2009). Cohort report on Title III academic objectives: Focusing on learning to increase learner success.

Division of Distance Learning & Instructional Technology (2010). Working papers for faculty development grant: Faculty development program & curriculum mapping competency domains, indicators, & courses.

Division of Distance Learning & Instructional Technology. (2011). Working papers for online faculty development program.

Faculty development survey results. (2010).

Quality Enhancement Plan, Assessment Report (2008-2009).

Quality Enhancement Plan, Management Team Report (2010).

Strategic gales for Delgado Community College 2011-2016.

Interviews with Delgado Faculty, Staff, and Administrators

Breckenridge, A. June 9-10, 2011, and related e-mail correspondence.

Conroy, P. June 20, 2011.

Edwards, S. June 9, 2011.

Givens, A. June 10, 2011.


Johnson, J. June 9, 2011.

Kern, D. June 9, 2011.

LaCour, M. June 9-10, 2011, and related e-mail correspondence.

Lea, D. June 10, 2011.

Sarrazin, C. June 10, 2011.

Siegrist, C. June 10, 2011.

Smith, F. June 10, 2011.

Stamm, T. June 9, 2011.

Thomas, B. June 9, 2011.

Other Sources

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Wiley.

Parsell, G. & Bligh, J. (1996). Contract learning, clinical learning and clinicians. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 72, 284-289.

Pchentichnaia, L. V. (2007). Essential and model programs for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities: A Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.

Steinert, Y., Macdonald, M.E., Boillet, M., Elizov, M., Meterissieri, S., Saleem, R., Ouellet, M., McLeod, P. J. (2010). Faculty and student support: Faculty development: If you build it, they will come. Medical Education, 44(9), 900-907.

docushare3.dcc.edudocushare3.dcc.edu/docushare/dsweb/get/document...web viewreport to delgado...

Documents