Strategic Issues Committee (SIC)2008-2009 Annual Report

I. Executive Summary

SIC meetings emphasized both personal connection among committee members and getting SIC’s business accomplished. To this end, we spent a considerable amount of time during our first meeting introducing ourselves and a few minutes at the beginning of subsequent meetings checking in with each other and discussing our lives as SFSU faculty and staff.

In its early meetings, SIC considered a number of major issues suggested by the President of the Academic Senate and the 2007-2008 SIC. These were:

A. Continued work on creating an Intellectual Property Policy

B. Further regulating the movement of academic programs into the College of Extended Learning (CEL)

C. Creating an Online Education Policy

D. Creation of an SFSU Academic Citizenship Policy

E. One additional issue, the inclusion of regulations covering staff voting procedures into the recently changed SF State Voting Policy, was taken up by SIC in its final meeting. SIC’s proposed edits to the SF State Voting Policy are appended to this report.

SIC noted that during its 2007-2008 term it had proposed an Intellectual Property Policy, but that this proposed policy was not passed by the Academic Senate. SIC felt that reworking the Intellectual Property Policy would not be a good use of SIC time and effort, and that this policy should instead be handled by an Intellectual Property Policy Task Force. SIC Chair Rothman met privately with Jaylan Turkkan, Associate Vice President (AVP), Research and Sponsored Programs, and encouraged her to meet with the Academic Senate Executive Committee (ExComm) and to create an Intellectual Property Policy Task Force. This task force was indeed created with Rothman as a member. SIC feels that the Intellectual Property Policy Task Force has the required expertise, will represent all the interests on the SFSU campus, and will be able to propose a policy that will be acceptable to the Academic Senate.

SIC held one regular meeting with Gail Whitaker, Dean of CEL and Jim Bryan, Associate Dean of CEL, in attendance. After detailed discussions with Drs. Whitaker and Bryan, SIC felt that the movement of academic programs into CEL was already properly regulated, and that creation of additional policy by SIC was not warranted.

SIC decided that creating an SF State Online Education Policy was a high priority and that dealing with an Academic Citizenship Policy was of less immediate importance. SIC thus spent the remaining 2008-2009 meetings, save the final one, working on an Online Education Policy. To this end, in early meetings, SIC looked at Online Education policies from a number of other institutions and invited a number of SF State faculty who teach online courses to meet with SIC as guests. SIC then began crafting an SF State Online Education Policy, drafts of which it distributed to a number of SF State faculty and staff. The policy draft was divided into five sections: Introduction, Definitions, Policy, Guidelines and Student Check-List. In mid-spring 2009 semester, SIC Chair Rothman presented a draft of SIC’s Online Education Policy to the

1

Academic Senate. In response, a number of additions and changes were suggested by members of the Academic Senate, including the creation of an Online Education Policy forum through an iLearn site. This site was created a few weeks later, with enrollment of about one hundred SF State faculty and staff, and opnions gathered. In late spring 2009, Dr. Maggie Beers, Director, Academic Technology, visited SIC and suggested substantive changes to the current draft of the Online Education Policy. These changes consolidated the Policy section into six major categories: 1) Course Approvals, 2) Recognition and Compensation, 3) Course Schedule, 4) Intellectual Property and Instructional Integrity, 5) Accessibility and 6) Resources in Support of Online Instruction. Dr. Beers also suggested that SIC collaborate more closely with the major on-campus stakeholders, an idea which SIC wholeheartedly embraced. As a result, Dr. Beers has met with or contacted AVP Linda Buckley, DPRC Director Eugene Chelberg, SF State Academic Scheduling Coordinator Barbara Luzardi, SF State CFA President Ramon Castellblanch and others to form a quasi-Task Force that will in collaboration with SIC Chair Rothman refine the Online Education Policy over the summer 2009 and have a proposal ready for Academic Senate discussion in early fall, 2009.

II. Charge to the Strategic Issues Committee

The Strategic Issues Committee (SIC) shall study and evaluate existing and proposed plans and policies concerning the relations between San Francisco State University and other entities external to the University. The specific domains of concern for the SIC will include:

1. Relations with domestic and overseas universities, community colleges and public schools including admission requirements, course equivalencies and transfer credits;

2. Campus response to Chancellor’s Office actions including Executive Orders, policies and planning activities;

3. Service-learning and civic engagement;

4. University development, advancement and government relations;

5. SF State and CSU long-range planning and goal-setting;

6. Accreditation and other interactions with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges;

7. Scanning of the environment for potential issues that might affect the University and the Senate; and

8. Other items as may be assigned by the Executive Committee.

Membership:

1. A minimum of seven members of the Academic Senate;2. One undergraduate and one graduate student appointed by Associated Students;3. A member of the Administration designated by the President

2

III. Rosters and Meeting Times

2008-2009 Roster

Name College

Department Term Role, Appointment

Barry S. Rothman SE Biology 2006-2009 Chair, Academic Senate Rep

Fangyu Chou HHS Nursing 2007-2010 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Sylvia Flatt BUS Management 2008-2011 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Joseph Gubaladze SE Mathematics 2008-2011 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Mahmood Hussain

BUS Marketing 2008-2011 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Debra Luna EDU Elementary Ed 2006-2009 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Laura Moody LIB Library 2007-2010 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Don Taylor HHS Dean 2007-2010 Member, Academic Senate Rep

2009-2010 Roster

Name College Department Term Role, Appointment

Barry S. Rothman SE Biology 2009-2012 Chair, Academic Senate Rep

Josie Arce ED Elementary Ed 2009-2012 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Tod Arnoldy BUS Staff 2008-2011 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Fangyu Chou HHS Nursing 2007-2010 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Sylvia Flatt BUS Management 2008-2011 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Joseph Gubaladze SE Mathematics 2008-2011 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Mahmood Hussain

BUS Marketing 2008-2011 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Laura Moody LIB Library 2007-2010 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Francis Neely BSS Political Science

2009-2012 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Don Taylor HHS Dean 2007-2010 Member, Academic Senate Rep

Meetings during 2008-2009 times were held semi-weekly on Tuesdays, 2-4 pm, alternating with semi-weekly Academic Senate meetings.

3

IV. Activities of 2008-2009

9/2/08

SIC’s Mission was discussed

o Focus on bigger projects and long-term view; fewer projects per semester compared to other standing committees.

o Use SIC as “incubator” for policy decisions, rather than only as “decision-maker”. Hence, include “holding hearings” that invite “major players”.

Introductions

iLearn

o All SIC documents will be available on the Academic Senate iLearn site. All members of SIC will be made “students” on that site. This makes for easy access of SIC info. However, Barry will also e-mail all documents to members.

o All SIC members are encouraged to become familiar with iLearn, both as a tool for SIC work and as an example for discussion of the Online Education Policy (see below)

Co-Chair: no one wanted to be co-chair, and all seemed satisfied to have Barry be the Chair

Review of Issues to be Considered by SIC this Semester

o Intellectual Property – discussed in detail

o Online Education and iLearn – discussed in detail

o Moving Academic Programs into CEL – discussed in detail

o Academic Citizenship (not discussed, but was on agenda)

o No additional issues were proposed by members of SIC

Prioritization of Issues

o Intellectual Property

Barry advised SIC to wait until the SFSU Administration has figured out how it wants to approach IP issues. Specifically, Jaylan Turkkan (new AVP of ORSP) is an expert in this area; SIC will wait until she is up and running and then invite her to visit us.

o Online Education

Mahmood will find and make available to SIC university policies within California; Laura will do the same for policies at universities outside the state.

4

Mahmood will invite Bruce Robertson (Marketing) to next SIC meeting. Bruce teaches online course for 1,800 students in Business and was a member of the 2001 Online Education Task-Force. He will likely have good insights into Online Education issues.

Sylvia will invite Ron Purser (Management) to attend next SIC meeting; Ron is heavily involved in Online Education.

o Moving Academic Programs into CEL

Don thinks a strict policy is already in place for moving courses and programs into CEL

Barry will invite Gail Whitaker and/or Jim Bryan from CEL to discuss this issue with SIC

9/16/09

Online education (Guest: Bruce Robertson)

o Bruce shared a publication presenting potential issues (pedagogy, technology, and administration) on online teaching.

o Bruce’s class is a hybrid online teaching for about 1800 enrollment. The class combines the options for student to take in-person classroom participation or total online learning (including video broadcasting). The class is updated every 3 years.

o Some issues include (1) intellectual property (ownership of video tapes and course materials), (2) workload/communication/administrative support among academic technology, home department, (3) class design and faculty workload, (4) preparation/qualification of faculty for online teaching, (5) who owns what?

o Related Policy: CSU policy on distance learning and SFSU intellectual property policy.

o More discussion on 9-30-08

CEL

o Gail Whitaker and Jim Bryan talked about current CSU policy (EO802) and guidelines for SFSU special sessions on degree, credential and certificate programs and relation to CEL.

9/30/09

Discussion of Online Education Issues

o Barry presented a summary of the Online Education Grid that Genie Stowers had shared with him.

o Intellectual property, noted in Item 9: The committee decided that we set it aside for now and work on other issues.

5

o This Matrix is good starting point. SIC can use it as a base to develop an elaborate Online Ed Policy later.

o SIC will add the following items on the grid:

Item # 15: Transcript.

Item # 16: Equivalence of Online and Offline courses.

Item # 17: Identity of students.

Item # 18: Resources.

o Sylvia Flatt will get a list if Online courses.

o Debra will find out from HED 630 instructor about authentication/identity.

o Laura will find more info on University of Phoenix and SJSU online education.

o Summaries from each SIC member; Joseph’s will be read out loud not covered because of time constraints

o The following items were not discussed because of time constraints:

Mahmood’s conversation with CSU‐Chico about Distance Learning issues

Bruce Robertson’s recommendations

How to divide the task?

o Differences among Distance Learning, Online Ed and Intellectual Property: Debra distributed a handbook on these differences (compiled from Wikipedia).

Visit by Ron Purser, Management Dept

o Ron shared his online teaching experience.

o According to Ron, some faculty think online teaching is not useful. RP encountered such hurdle and he took it to Academic Freedom Committee and won

o Large lecture introductory courses are better online.

o Ron: To force student to come to campus defeats the purpose.

o Ron agreed that the potential for false identity exists but says he doesn’t know how much of this actually happens.

o Ron mentioned of excessive administrative duties.

o Ron will check with Jerry Hanley and Regan Caruthers at the Academic Technology at CSU Chancellor’s office if they can provide more policy materials on Intellectual Property. More research needed on IP.

o Measurement of learning outcome: Student evaluation needs modifications. We can also evaluate the deliverables (assignments, exams, etc.).

o Ron talked about “Penopto,” a technology to videotape yourself, synchronize it with your PPT and upload to the server.

6

o Ron thinks at SF we do not have adequate tech support. It’s a free-lance approach.

10/14/09

Detailed Discussion of Online Ed Policy – Draft #1

Assignments for 10-28-08 meeting

10/28/09

Chair Rothman reported that we would not be developing an Online Education Policy this semester. There is a forthcoming White Paper that will encompass the CSU system-wide.

However, we still need something for SFSU in the meantime:

o Should we bring issue to Academic Senate-we could both elicit their involvement and use the opportunity to pass along the information gathered?

o Only 2 SIC meetings remain, and this issue may be contentious.

Debra volunteered to research how other institutions of higher learning define “online classes”.

Laura suggested everyone take a look at San Jose State University’s E-Campus Site which seems to spell out the ins and outs of distance ed: http://online.sjsu.edu/

o Of interest is the way they describe the TYPE of class in the catalog.

Rothman then took us through the 2nd Draft of the Online Education Policy, reading through the feedback received from various campus affiliates, all of which were different. Rothman also said he’d send around examples of the feedback received. Live Edit was done incorporating feedback from:

o Linda Buckley-- added her insights re: WASC/APEE

There are so many different types of instruction

WASC guidelines for distance education

o Kevin Kelley—mentioned the use of E-Portfolios and the access to technology this requires.

o Feedback from Arek Goetz, Shawn Whalen and Bruce Robertson also discussed and updated.

11/18/09

SIC held a detailed discussion of Online Ed Policy Draft #3. Edits were made in real time using a digital projector. These edits will be continued during the spring semester.

1/27/09

7

SIC continued to hold a detailed discussion of Online Ed Policy Draft #3. Edits were made in real time using a digital projector. These edits will be consolidated into the next Online Education Policy.

2/10/09

Discussion of questions asked on Senate floor (02/03/09) when Chair Rothman reported on SIC’s development of an online education policy at SFSU. The questions were typed and kindly provided to SIC by Ray Trautman.

SIC felt that Senate liked the work being done by SIC on the online education policy and interesting discussion was prompted on 02/03/09. However, over the past week nobody commented or asked further questions over email.

The committee went over a half of the recorded questions and incorporated appropriate changes in the policy draft.

Several questions could not be addressed without additional information and further discussion (e.g., Do we need online-specific course evaluation criteria, different from the SFSU standard 6 questions? How to address the student authentication issue? How to measure “50% or more of the curriculum” in the policy, used for determination of the type of courses: online vs. hyperflex vs. hybrid vs. traditional?)

Chair Rothman mentioned that our policy/guidelines potentially overlap with WASC Guidelines for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degrees and Certificate Programs. SIC members were tasked to check WASC redundancy in our Online Education Policy: Mahmood (section 1 in WASC Guidelines), Joseph (section 2), Debra (section 3), Barry (section 4), Sylvia (Section 5).

Joseph will ask Arek Goetz at Math SFSU, who teaches online calculus courses, what online-specific questions he uses in course evaluations and, also, how he handles the student authentication issue.

2/24/09

Proposed timeline of tasks: o Set-up online forum—2/27/09 --create a forum and post documents (WASC and

Online Ed report) --announcement to senate and Deans about the forum, and ask to share with constituents)

o Collect online input—3/6/09o Next SIC meeting—3/10/09--Further revision of OE policyo Senate—3/17/09--Send to ExComm if there is revised draft.o University Spring Break---3/24, 3/31o To ExComm—before or on 4/7/09; then SICo Academic senate, First reading,—4/14/09o ExComm Discussion---4/21/09o Academic Senate, Second reading—4/28/09

Setting up iLearn Forum: Online Education Policy (Barry) Revisit the questions asked on the Feb 3 senate:

o Student evaluation

8

Joseph reported feedback from Goetz (e-mail had forwarded to SIC committee); using online exit surveys including 6 standard questions plus 6 additional separate questions.

Mahmood reported feedback from Robertson; using COB standard questions/digital measures through online, but having about 20-30 response rate.

Sylvia reported feedback from Ron; using COB standard eval online, students can retake exams as much as they wish.

o Learning Objectives refer to WASC p.5, section 2 Curriculum and Instruction--“Methods

change but standards endure”, i.e., don’t change LO. Need to consider measurement student learning outcomes as WASC tightens control.

o Identification/plagiarism/cheating Instructor is responsible for verifying student identity and protect from

plagiarism using resources made available by SFSU. o Faculty Workload

refer to WASC 2b, 3ao Accessibility

refer to WASC 5d Send/E-mail to Barry on the comparison of WASC and OE policy per assigned sections.

3/10/09

Continuing discussion on the preparation of the SFSU Online Education Policy Committee members read over the current in-progress Online Education Policy Two sections were added to the document:

o Measurable Learning Outcomeso Online Media/Portfolios

Committee also discussed the equity and social justice element within online percentages, which refers to limiting number of online units per semester.

Incorporate/refer to WASC Guidelines when preparing the document.

4/7/09

Barry introduced Maggie Beers, Academic Technology, to the SIC. Barry explained that he had met with Maggie and presented the online policy (draft #5). Maggie reviewed the policy, coming up with many helpful suggestions. She attended today’s meeting to explain key points; she also informed SIC that SF State has an “earlier version” of an online policy – something put together sometime ago. Of course, this was unknown to SIC. Maggie has agreed to provide SIC with a copy. Suggestions from Maggie focused on: 1) explaining course definitions, from traditional face-to-face courses to those that are 100% online, and 2) clustering statements in policy into themes.

Course definitions in policyo Maggie reviewed each of the definitions, explaining additions and deletions, and

answering comments/questions from committee members. She shared that a “hyperflex course” is the point at which it becomes important to have an online policy. Brian Beatty’s (Department of Instructional Technologies) hyperflex

9

course was used as an example. Maggie consulted with Kevin Kelly, Academic Technology, and the two agreed on the revised definitions.

Themes that surfaced from policy – Maggie suggested the following themes:o Course approval processo Recognition & compensationo Course scheduleo Intellectual property & instructional integrityo Accessibility – needs work; consult with Gene Chelberg, Director of DPRC.

Cannot state “accessible as possible”o Resources in support of online instruction (adapted from San Jose State) Maggie

explained “Service Level Agreements” Other points shared in the discussion

o How does one write a policy that manages but doesn’t micromanage each online course?

o Students should be able to identify courses with an online component.o Identity check deleted from policy, should be left to departments. Instructors

should not play role of a “police person”. Address authenticity at the departmental level (curriculum committee). Is the point to catch someone and/or prevent changes to grading curve?

o Use “instructor” rather than “faculty” in the online policy.o Evaluations: How to do for online courses? Experience shows low return. What

does this mean for retention/tenure/promotion? Idea: Invite Lesley Zwillinger, Chair of CFA Faculty Rights Panel (Counseling Department).

o SF State should not be responsible for “remediation” when students are not able to handle online duties.

o Special software to be handled by departments. Maggie and Barry will continue to work on policy. Barry will present to EXCOM and see

how the policy is received.

4/21/09

Chair’s update on Online Education Policy: Maggie Beers, Director, Academic Technology – working on Online Education Policy. She is bringing in stakeholders, who are most involved. For accessibility she has invited Gene Chelberg to write bullet point. She also involved Linda Buckley to review the policy. Other stakeholders: Barbara Luzardi (in charge of online class scheduling) and CFA at some point will also get involved. M Beers and BR talked about “what now”: MB as a hub and let them work on it. Then bring it to SIC. Next semester: we could be ready for the 1st reading with all stakeholders presenting their inputs to the policy.

An aside: Ex. Comm. is the academic senate over the summer. They will handle any summer emergencies (e.g., budget issues).

Staff election: Text on staff election. BR would send it to SIC like SIC members to review the policy and share thoughts and comments. This will be in the next SIC meeting.

Next year’s SIC: LM, MH (sabbatical in Spring 2010), SF, JG (sabbatical in Fall 2009). DT (uncertain). DL can’t be back.

10

Next meeting: May 05. BR needs to write a year-end report. All the outstanding meeting notes should reach BR before the end of the semester.

5/5/09

SIC reviewed the present SF State Voting Policy and a document on staff elections. SIC made revisions to the SF State Voting Policy that incorporated regulations mentioned in staff voting document.

SIC looked at a series of e-mails sent between ExComm members in an effort to revise the SF State Voting Policy to include regulations for voting for staff positions. These e-mails made suggestions that were nearly identical to SIC’s proposals. Small additional policy revisions were made in light of these e-mail messages.

V. Proposed Agenda for 2009-2010

A. Complete the Online Education Policy during summer 2009 and convey to ExComm and Academic Senate. Include emerging CSU-wide reports and policies.

B. Convey the Intellectual Property Policy, to be completed by the IPP Task Force, to ExComm and Academic Senate.

C. Convey edited regulations of the SF State Voting Policy to ExComm and the Academic Senate. These changes add staff voting procedures to the current policy.

D. Consider creation of an SFSU Academic Citizenship Policy.

E. Consider newly arising policies as a result of severe CSU-wide budget cuts.

11

V. Appendix I – Draft #6 of Online SF State Education Policy

Introduction

SF State recognizes that with the advent of the internet and its increased use in all aspects of life, the teaching of university courses has changed considerably. Today, most university courses use the internet to some degree and some university courses have become entirely “online”. The addition of online courses and content to SF State’s curriculum has been consistent with its present mission and role as a public educational institution, and has the potential to expand the geographical area that SF State serves beyond that of the San Francisco Bay Area.

The use of the internet as an instructional tool comes with the possible advantages of being able to: 1) more easily and rapidly disseminate teaching materials, and with less use of paper, 2) use more dynamic, interactive teaching materials and methods, 3) engage students in real-time and asynchronous discussions and interactions outside of classroom periods, 4) enhance students’ use of writing as a communication tool, 5) deliver course content to students located anywhere in the world with internet access, 6) more easily and systematically collect data on parameters such as learning outcomes and student satisfaction and 7) use online media to create electronic portfolios that document and help evaluate students’ progress through their chosen curriculum. Such changes also come with the possible challenges of: 1) providing sufficient relational contact among course participants, 2) ensuring accessibility of course content to students with disabilities, 3) detecting plagiarism and false representation of work, 4) ensuring compliance with copyright laws, 5) ensuring compliance with intellectual property policy, 6) ensuring that courses with online content maintain high standards and good learning outcomes, 7) ensuring that the faculty who create online content are not exploited by taking the following measures: a) properly preparing them for the technological challenges they face, b) providing them with proper technological support for ongoing courses, c) compensating them properly for the work required to teach courses with online content and d) allowing faculty who create courses with online content to benefit from their investment of effort by either compensating them for their development time up front, or enabling them to teach such courses for a sufficient number of offerings.

While SF State prizes academic freedom and wishes to encourage innovation in instruction, the faculty also has a collective responsibility to ensure the academic quality and integrity of SF State’s courses, programs, and degrees. This responsibility extends to those courses and programs offered through online education. Indeed, at present there are attitudes held by some educational institutions (for example, medical schools) that online delivery is inferior to traditional course delivery. By requiring that the high standards used for traditional course delivery are also applied to online course delivery, SF State and similarly oriented institutions can help establish the credibility of online course work.

To address the potential challenges arising from online course content, we provide below Definitions of course types, official Policy that must be followed, Guidelines that we hope will be considered by course creators and curriculum review committees and which may eventually become policy, and a Student Check-List that could be used to help students better understand the demands of Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses. This proposal is an amalgamation of online education policies used by other universities with modifications made to specifically

12

address SF State’s learning environment. We thank the many SF State faculty and administrators who have contributed to the writing of this draft policy.

Definitions

In a Traditional Course, students attend all class sessions and instructor office hours on campus. No technology is used for instruction, nor for communication.

In a Technology Enhanced Course, students attend all class sessions on campus in a face-to-face environment. Technology is primarily used to engage the students with the curriculum and learning process, and to communicate with the instructor inside and outside of office hours. Assessment may take place in the face-to-face or online environments.

In a Hybrid Course, students attend some of the class sessions on campus, in a face-to-face environment, and some of the class sessions off-campus, in an online environment. Technology is primarily used to create a substitute for some of the classrooms experiences, and to communicate with the instructor inside and outside of office hours. Assessment may take place in the face-to-face or online environments.

In a HyperFlex Course, students can choose to attend class sessions three ways; on campus, in a face-to-face environment; synchronously off-campus, in an online environment; or asynchronously off campus, in an online environment. Technology is primarily used to provide the students with flexibility in their choice of classroom experience, and to communicate with the instructor inside and outside of office hours Assessment may take place in the face-to-face or online environments.

In an Online Course, students attend all classes off campus, in an online environment. Technology is primarily used to create a substitute for an entire course experience, and to communicate with the instructor inside and outside of office hours. Assessment may take place in the online environment, or through other arrangements that do not require the student to travel to campus.

Policy

Course Approvals Technology Enhanced, Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses must abide by the same

policies and laws that govern Traditional Courses. These policies and laws include but are not limited to those generated by the Federal and California jurisdictions, CSU and SF State Academic Senates, CSU and SF State Executive Orders and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)

Any new degree, certificate, or credential program in which 50% or more of the course delivery occurs through Hybrid, Hyperflex and/or Online Course format must consult with the Office of Academic Planning and Educational Effectiveness (APEE) to obtain WASC approval.

Any existing degree, certificate, or credential program that over time increases its online offerings to the point that a student can fulfill the program’s requirements with 50% or more

13

of the curriculum taken in Hybrid, Hyperflex and/or Online Course formal must consult with the Office of APEE for WASC approval.

Any new Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online course must be reviewed by the Curriculum Committee of the department and/or college offering that course by way of a new course proposal. WTU for such a course will be determined by the department and/or college offering the course.

Any conversion of a Traditional Course into a Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online Course must be reviewed by the Curriculum Committee of the department and/or college offering that course by way of a course revision proposal. WTU for such a course may be adjusted by the department and/or college offering the course.

Recognition & Compensation For purposes of the Retention, Tenure and Promotion processes, Technology Enhanced,

Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses must be considered a valid means of instruction and subject to the same principles of peer review and student evaluation as Traditional courses.

Faculty who create online courses must be allowed to teach such newly created courses for a sufficient number of offerings, or provided an initial development stipend, to compensate them properly for their investment of effort, as determined by their department and/or college.

Course Schedule The hardware and software requirements for Technology Enhanced, Hybrid, Hyperflex and

Online Courses must be specified in the Course Description, which must be electronically linked to the Course Title on the SF State Online Course Schedule. These requirements must also be included in the course syllabus.

Definitions of Traditional, Technology Enhanced, Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses must be prominently displayed on the SF State Online Course Schedule. Each course displayed on the SF State Online Course Schedule must be identified as Traditional, Technology Enhanced, Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online, and the percent of online content (0%-100%) indicated.

Technology Enhanced, Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses must follow the regular SF State academic calendar, with exceptions to be granted by the Provost.

A Technology Enhanced, Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online Course with the same SF State Bulletin listing (name and course number) as a Traditional Course must cover the same material and provide the same learning outcomes as the Traditional Course.

SF State must ensure that degree, certificate, or credential programs that require, Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online Courses will maintain the availability of such courses for a period of time that allows students who have begun the program to complete it.

Intellectual Properity and Instructional Integrity

14

Intellectual property created during the development of online courses must follow the Intellectual Property Policy that SF State has in place.

Traditional, Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses must adhere to copyright laws. Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses must employ effective methods for verifying student

identity and protecting against plagiarism using resources made available by SF State.

In the event that an instructor is not able to complete the online course due to unforeseen causes, such as sickness, the university may grant another faculty member access to the online course materials and communications so that the students are able to complete the course.

Accessibility Any accessibility issues for students with disabilities taking Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online

Courses must be specified in the Course Description, which must be electronically linked to the Course Title on the SF State Online Course Schedule. These issues must also be listed in the course syllabus.

Instructors must make online course material as accessible as possible to students with disabilities. These disabilities include but are not limited to hearing impairments, visual impairments, motor impairments and slow processing speed. When such accommodations are not available, this information should be included on the course syllabus and the SF State Online Course Schedule. Instructors are encouraged to work with SF State’s DPRC in developing such accommodations.

Resources in Support of Online Instruction It is the responsibility of the university to develop and maintain the basic infrastructure

needed to provide support of all modes of online instruction, including telecommunications, software, network systems, and instructional and technical support.

Extraordinary requests for university resources in support of online instruction, as well as needs for enhancements, should be identified and prioritized at the department, college, and university levels. Cross-unit and cross-institutional sharing of learning and resources should be encouraged.

Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online Courses must be offered with appropriate technological support for faculty and students, as defined by Service Level Agreements between the service providers, faculty and students.

The course syllabus should include contact information for technical support, scheduled technical maintenance windows, email addresses to send technical complaints, and alternative arrangements for students in the event of a documented technical failure of the university system, such as the possibility to complete a quiz within a 24 hour period after the resumption of services.

15

Guidelines

The syllabus of an, Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online Course should include: Office hours and mode of contact between instructor and students (in-person, phone, online,

etc.), and an expected turn-around time for communications.

Indication of any required computer software and/or hardware, their sources and estimated costs.

Estimated weekly time required for success in the course.

Indication of technical expertise, specialized software and specialized hardware required for success in the course.

The manner in which students will officially evaluate the course and/or instructor.

Dates and times of face-to-face and synchronous sessions.

Arrangements for exams and instructions for alternative arrangements in the event of university-side technical outages.

A summary of and ways to access a Code of Student Conduct.

Accommodations or lack thereof for students with disabilities.

Reference to an Online Student Checklist (see below) is highly recommended.

Student Privacy Issues:

SF State should provide the most secure environment possible and prioritize student privacy rights. SF State should provide faculty with training on student privacy issues.

Instructors should keep student privacy a priority and protect student identity and grades.

Students should protect the privacy and confidentiality of themselves and other students while enrolled in a Hybrid, Hyperflex or Online Course. The university should provide instructions for students on how to protect their privacy.

Communication Among Course Participants:

For Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses, unless otherwise indicated, e-mail or other designated electronic media, such as chat or webconference, should be the official means of communication with the instructor and among class members.

Students should use their official SF State e-mail address for course communication.

SF State should keep e-mail software and hardware up to date and project future needs so that SF State e-mail systems continue to function appropriately for faculty and students.

Each Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Course should provide the opportunity for substantial, personal, and timely interactions between faculty and students and among students.

16

Technical Support:

After consulting with faculty, staff and student users, SF State should develop software standards for ease of maintenance and support of Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses.

To ensure ease of use and consistency for students, faculty should use the standard university learning management system (iLearn) for delivery of courses.

SF State should offer appropriate pedagogical and technical training and support services to faculty who teach Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses.

SF State should offer remedial support to those students not yet technologically prepared to perform adequately in Online Courses at the college level.

SF State should respond in a timely manner to technical, course-related problems communicated by users.

Students and instructors should learn standard university technical systems outside of class. These include but are not limited to basic computer skills, and using word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, e-mail and internet browser programs.

Instructors should meet the university technological standards. In the case of teaching with non-standard resources, it is the instructor’s responsibility to ensure access to resources and appropriate training within the course. Instructors are encouraged to make their courses as user friendly as possible.

Specialized software and hardware for Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses should be available through appropriate on-campus computer labs available to SF State students.

Student Code of Conduct:

Students should abide by the official Student Code of Conduct in order to create a safe place in which all can learn.

Faculty should make clear the standards of conduct that are expected in Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses with respect to interactions with students, faculty, and support staff.

Identification of Online Courses:

Faculty and students have a right to know the modes of delivery and technological requirements of each course, program, and degree offered by SF State. Students should have access to this information, usually by way of the course syllabus and Online Class Schedule, before enrolling in a course or program.

Links to electronic versions of these Definitions, Policy, Guidelines and Student Check-List should be prominently displayed on the SF State Online Course Schedule.

Evaluation:

All Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses should be evaluated according to department, college and SF State policy. This usually entails peer reviews and anonymous student evaluations. Efforts should be made to have student course evaluations performed electronically rather than by using paper response forms. We suggest that in addition to asking the questions required by department, college and SF State policy, evaluations of

17

Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses specifically inquire about the effectiveness of the online aspects of the course. The university should caliber the average of these responses so as not to disadvantage faculty using these new methods.

Credit Toward Degrees and Certificates:

In the awarding of degrees, certificates and credentials, appropriate Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses should be considered a valid means of instruction.

Individual departments and colleges and encouraged to develop standards that govern the total amount of online content (within Hybrid, Hyperflex and Online Courses) that can be applied toward a degree, credential or certificate.

18

Student Check-List

Online learning can be quite different than learning in a traditional classroom setting. It requires the student to think differently about how he or she communicates with faculty, completes assignments and tests, and most importantly, studies. To be successful as an online student you should be able to answer "yes" to the following questions:

1. Do you possess strong time management skills?You will be responsible for completing weekly assignments. There will be established time-lines for submitting assignments.

2. Do you possess strong organizational skills?There may not be established times during the week that you will have to be online. In this case, you will be given the how and the what, but the when will be up to you. You may find that 6:00 AM or 11:00 PM is the most convenient time for you to be online. Your ability to effectively organize your time will be crucial to your success.

3. Are you self-motivated?Due to the flexibility and convenience of online learning it is often easy to put off class work until the last minute. Self-motivation is key to staying current on assignments and completing class work in a timely manner.

4. Do you enjoy working independently?The majority of your work will be completed on your own. There may be little or no face-to-face contact with faculty or other students. Online learning requires a greater than average self-discipline to be successful.

5. Are you comfortable working with technology?All assignments and correspondence with faculty may be conducted online. Your ability to correspond via e-mail, send, receive, and view documents, and have access to a reliable Internet connection is therefore extremely important.

6. Do you enjoy a challenge?Online learning requires most students to spend more time per week per class than they would typically spend in a traditional classroom setting. The very nature of learning online requires more in-depth study and interaction with faculty than what is traditionally required. Students spend many hours of study time per week per class. Online classes are typically not easier than their corresponding traditional class.

7. Do you have strong interpersonal skills?

19

VI. Appendix II – Proposed Revisions to Academic Senate Bylaws Regarding Voting Procedures Parts A, B, and E of Section V (Elections)

Rationale for Proposed Revisions:

The existing bylaws assume the use of paper-based procedures for conducting elections. However, now it typically is more practical and effective for the Senate to conduct elections electronically. Still, the option should remain to conduct elections using either method. Also, the specific procedures for conducting elections electronically may vary, based on circumstances or changes in technologies, and those procedures require the involvement of technical staff.

Therefore, the proposed revision enumerates the criteria for guaranteeing fair election procedures and assigns responsibility for conducting elections to the Senate Chair, working with Senate and technical staff, and in consultation with the Executive Committee, rather than with the separate Elections Committee (which conducts elections during Senate meetings). The revision further provides for notification and archiving of results.

In addition, the revision reflects the name change to University Tenure and Promotions Committee and clarifies or corrects other minor points.

Note: Only Parts A, B, and E of Section V are proposed for revision, because the remaining parts (concerned with College elections, internal Senate elections, elections on referenda, and terms of service) do not reference either paper-based procedures or UPC.

V. ELECTIONS

A. All-University elections include, among other possibilities, those that select faculty and, where appropriate, staff representatives for at-large membership on the Academic Senate, the Statewide Academic Senate, administrative consultation committees, and the Academic Freedom Committee. The University Tenure and Promotions Committee elections, which include some special requirements, will be discussed in a separate section. The Chair of the Academic Senate, in consultation with the Executive Committee, will oversee the conduct of all-university faculty elections, with support from Senate and technical staff. In the case of a staff election, the Chair of the Academic Senate, in consultation with the Executive Committee, shall appoint a three-member elections committee composed of staff to oversee that election.

1. Announcement of Elections: Announcements of elections shall be made in three ways: AppropriateAn appropriate faculty and staff publications,publication, directly to the electorate, and by communication with appropriate administrators.

2. Electorate

a) In most instances of all-university elections the faculty electorate is determined by the provisions of the Faculty Constitution.

20

b) In any instance where the Faculty Constitution would not determine the faculty, or in the case of determining the staff electorate, the Academic Senate shall have this responsibility.

3. Nominations

a) Nominations may be made by any member of the electorate so long as the person being nominated agrees to stand as a candidate.

b) In some instances the Academic Senate or the Executive Committee of the Senate might wish to serve as an initial nominating committee, especially for such ad hoc all-university committees which might be deemed necessary. There shall be a minimum of ten working days notice between the announcement of an all-university election and the deadline for the receipt of nominations. This deadline shall not be extended as long as there have been nominated twice as many candidates as there are offices, but must be extended for only five working days (and publicized) should the number of nominations fall short of this requirement.

4. Availability of Ballots: Ballots shall be made available to an up-to-date listing of the electorate.

5. Voting

a) All ballots must be verified as submitted by qualified electors, with provision made to ensure a maximum of one vote per elector. No votes shall be counted that are received after the deadline listed on the ballot. The deadline shall not be less than five working days nor more than ten working days from when the ballot is made available.

b) During the voting period, only Senate and technical staff shall have access to any open ballot.

6. Listing of Names on Ballots: Names will be listed on ballots in a random order. The identifying description of the candidate will coincide with the listing of the individual in the University Bulletin or other official records.

7. Approval Voting System

a) In an all-university election, the system known as approval voting will be used. Regardless of how many candidates there are or how many places are to be filled, under approval voting the voter may vote for any number of candidates, but may not cast more than one vote for a candidate.

b) Winning candidates are those with the highest number of votes.

c) In the event of ties that preclude determination of winner or winners, a run-off election will be held among those so tied.

21

8. Void Ballots: Ballots will be considered void if they violate any other specific requirements in the election. There shall be no requirement that a voter must vote for the required number of candidates.

9. Replacements

a) Should a vacancy develop during the academic year in any position selected by an all-university election, the individual receiving the highest number of votes among those not elected in the most recent election for that office will serve as a short-term replacement for the remainder of the year

b) Should an elected member go on leave for not more than one year, his/her substitute would be determined by the process described in 9(a).

c) Should a representative be absent from his/her seat for more than a year or should a representative resign from a seat when there is more than one year remaining in his/her term, the balance of the term shall be filled at the next regularly scheduled annual election.

d) At any election at which both full and partial terms are at stake, individuals will be assigned to the full and partial terms as determined by their rank order in the election.

e) Any problem not met by these replacement procedures will be settled by the Executive Committee.

10. Statements by Candidatesa) Candidates for all-university elections should be encouraged to file statements

reflecting their views that are pertinent to the particular election.

b) These statements shall be distributed included with the ballots.

11. Counting of Ballots: It is the responsibility of the Executive Committee to make decisions on the legitimacy of individual votes and to certify the results of the elections.

12. Notification and recordkeeping: After election results are determined, all candidates will be notified of their own election results. Then, election results will be announced in an appropriate campus publication, directly to the electorate, and by communication with appropriate administrators. Election records, including vote totals for all offices, will be available upon request and will be maintained for three years following each election.

B. University Tenure and Promotions Committee Elections: Except where indicated below, the procedures for other all-university elections shall be followed in the election of faculty members to the University Tenure and Promotions Committee.

22

1. Nominations

a) Candidates for the University Tenure and Promotions Committee must be tenured full professors. (Persons not eligible for membership on the Committee are University Deans, administrative officers of Colleges, department chairs, program directors who have responsibility for RTP review, members of the Academic Senate, and persons due to be on leave the following year. In addition, no person shall serve simultaneously on the department promotions committee and on the University Tenure and Promotions Committee.)

b) Nominees shall be elected by each College and the Library. The person being nominated must agree to stand as a candidate. Only those Colleges (or the Library) who would not have members continuing on the University Tenure and Promotions Committee may submit nominees for the annual election to the Committee.

2. Statements by Candidates: No statements will be required by the candidates, but they may be expected to assist the Senate office staff in the preparation of a biographical summary that may appear in the ballot.

3. Timing: The University Tenure and Promotions Committee elections will be conducted in the spring semester and should be completed by June 1. The announcement for nominations should be issued no later than February 16. Nominations will be accepted during the remainder of February.

E. Referenda

1. When referenda have been decreed by the faculty, staffFaculty or the Senate, the Executive Committee shall have the responsibility of deciding whether or not position statements on the referenda issues should be promulgated with the ballot. Should such statements be required, the Elections Committee or the Executive Committee will be responsible for spelling out the issues in the referenda.

2. Procedures for all-university elections (Part A) shall be followed, where applicable.

3. The names and addresses of the chairs of the sponsoring groups should be included on all campaign literature.

23