Distance and Distributed Learning Committee Meeting

February 4, 2005
Charlottesville, VA

In attendance:
Dr. John Downey (BRCC), Susan Beasley (CVCC), Rebecca Blankenship (GCC), Kristen Kelly(JTCC), Sara Brown (LFCC), Susan Kennedy (MECC), Linda Claussen(NRCC), Steve Sachs (NVCC), Mary Clare DiGiacomo (PVCC), LeslieSmith (RCC), Stacy Harris (SWCC), Scott Langhorst (TCC), RuthSmith (TNCC), Charles Boiling (VHCC), and Inez Farrell (VWCC). From the System Office: Dr. Charlie White, Dr. Neil Matkin, Dr. Carole Schultz, Tim Tirrell, Bob Vawter, David Carter-Tod, Sue Ann Curran, and MattLawson.

Absent:
Reo McBride(DSLCC), William Dey (DCC), Mary Kay Mulligan (ESCC), Shelia Hobbs (PDCCC),Carolyn Bird (PHCC), Bill Hightower (SSVCC), and Maureen Murphy (WCC).

I. Welcome and Introductions
Dr. Downey,Committee Chairperson, welcomed the group to the meeting. He then introducedDr. White and Dr. Matkin. They were invited to present to the committee theirvision of how they see the DDLC best functioning to implement their charge.

II. Remarksfrom Dr. Charlie White, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Services

• views Academic Services and Research (AS & R) and Information Technology Services (ITS) working together as ITS manages the infrastructure and AS & R manages academics.
• Wants faculty, when they come up with ideas or projects, to present them to their DDLC member. The DDLC member can then share the idea with the rest of the committee and the group decides if they want to take it on as a project. If so, then it is brought to ITS and AS & R to determine if they have the resources. Projects originate at the colleges rather than being driven top down from the VCCS.
• Goals from teleconference meeting on the Federal Earmark:
• Enhancement of course management system (Blackboard)
• Learning object repository (Gives him heartburn but will support it if the colleges want it.)
• Enhancing the System Office role in maximizing resources.
• E-learning goal - wordy (not sure what it means).
• Promoting more college choice in curriculum development.
• Seeking additional federal funds
• Developing a VCCS portal (Chancellor likes this idea).
• Colleges need to decide what they need to support excellence in distance and distributed learning.
• VCSS needs to have a professional development program to meet faculty where they are (provide either training or resources for training)
• The Chancellor has asked Dr. Matkin and the Technology Council to look at IT staffing on the campuses. (issue: equipment rich, staff poor?)
• How do we provide for our smaller schools as well as our larger schools?

Commentsby committee members:

Problem identified by Charles Boling: We are good on the information side of IT, butnot the instructional side of IT. What are the minimum standards for staffingfor distance learning? Can the committee define the roles and responsibilitiesof an instructional technologist?

CharlieWhite: Can the DDLC make that recommendation?

John Downey: In order to do so, we need toarticulate our needs as a system, not as individual colleges. What support dowe need at the colleges to meet the vision of Dateline 2009? What supportshould be centralized? Our immediate need is to organize ourselves as a DDLCto most effectively make recommendations on these and similar topics to the ViceChancellor for Academic Services and Research.

III. Remarksfrom Dr. Neil Matkin, Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Services

• When he first arrived, all of the IT staff had not met each other. His direction has been to have the IT staff focus on two goals:
• 1) Put students first.
• 2) Service without excuses.
• All students and faculty care about is whether the technology works or does not work.
• A major goal is to have data-driven strategic planning and accountability.
• Brought in Michael Dickson, a nationally known Distance Learning expert and facilitator to work with a group of Presidents and other college administrators. In the short term, they are looking at how to use the federal earmark, and more broadly at future directions for distance learning in the VCCS.
• The Chancellor has stated that colleges should develop/deliver/own their course offerings rather than having such courses developed at the System Office. He is concerned about programs funded out of federal dollars or other grant funds that will eventually go away and leave an unfunded mandate for the colleges to continue the programs. He has also stated that the System Office must show accountability for the tech fee funds and demonstrate that they are being employed to provide efficient and effective services.
• The VCCS distance learning infrastructure is a half-billion dollar industry.
• Our mission is “not about ownership, but about service”

We need toknow when to think as a system and when to think as colleges and become forward-looking. The System Office has too often over-promised and under-delivered.

Comments:

Leslie Smith noted that although transfer was a core concern of the VCCS, somecolleges (William and Mary and Mary Washington) do not accept distance learningcourses for transfer credit. They make their students sign a form stating thattheir courses are not distance learning courses.

A motion was made and seconded to ask Dr. White to present this issue to the Chancellor to address with the presidents of Mary Washington and William and Mary. The motion passed.

IV. Updateof DDLC Membership

John Downey asked the group to make anycorrections to the membership list in the meeting packet. He made thecorrections and told the group that he would send out an updated list.

V. WebConferencing Pilot Update

A sub-groupof the DDLC has been investigating Web Conferencing systems as voted upon atthe prior meeting. Inez Farrell presented the results of a survey of VCCS colleges. While there appeared to be general interest in an audio plug-in to Blackboard, suchas Wimba, there did not appear to be an overwhelming interest in an enterprise versionof a conferencing system.

It was suggested that the some of the smaller colleges who cannot afford to purchase asystem should form a consortium where they come to an agreement between themand the System Office to share hardware and support. The challenge is infinding a middle ground between every college sharing an enterprise system andmany colleges having nothing.

The DDLC couldidentify critical functionality (needs assessment) and put out an RFP. Theproblem is that we often find the product first and then shape our needs to theproduct’s functionality. The system needs to get beyond product-specificevaluations and conduct formal evaluations and needs assessments.

LindaClaussen made a motion to advise the VCCS according to the wording of item #1as listed in the agenda packet: There does not appear to be a widespreaddesire for an enterprise version of web conferencing software at most collegesin the VCCS.) Inez Farrell seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.

The discussion then turned to Blackboard building blocks and how, without knowingwhat is out there, it is difficult to determine what faculty needs are notbeing met. An example was given about a building block that grades discussionboard participation. Other building blocks being looked at include Turnitin, aplagiarism detection software, and Wimba.

Since theLSA’s have a building block work group, it was suggested that the DDLC workwith them. Scott Langhorst also suggested that Blackboard Users Conference participants should examine and evaluate Building Block demos.

Sara Brown made a motion for the DDLC to work with Jennifer Smith (CVCC), leader ofthe Building Block work group, and with Blackboard Users Conference attendeesto evaluate Building Blocks. Charles Boiling seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.

VI.Blackboard Update

Matt Lawsonprovided the DDLC with a demonstration of Directory Services 2. Directoryservices 2 provides an enhanced service to students, faculty and staff whichwill be available at the same time as the PeopleSoft upgrade. Next, DavidCarter-Tod gave an update of the Blackboard 6 Migration timeline and Sue AnnCurran presented the training opportunities and schedule for Blackboard SystemAdministrators, interested faculty at New Horizons, and through informalmeetings at during the Blackboard Users Conference in Baltimore.

VII.Election of Representative to the Technology Council

JohnDowney was elected as representative to Tech Council. Inez Farrell was electedto serve as the alternate. Both were elected unanimously by the committee.

VIII.VCCSOnline Status

The groupdiscussed the online application and students taking classes at more than onecollege. Despite the perception that there is a VCCS policy to the contrary,many students wanting to take classes at multiple VCCS colleges are asked tofill out the application for admission multiple times. The student must alsobe term-activated at the each college in order to register.

Carole Schultz suggested the group draft a position paper on how to remove barriers forstudents taking courses at more than one college. This suggestion wasdiscussed further at a later point in the meeting as a method for advising theVice Chancellor on the thoughts of the DDLC in helping the System meet thegoals of Dateline 2009.

Inez Farrell shared a story of a student wanting the e-rate for an online biologycourse. Since it is a science course with an in-person lab, it was not codedfor the e-rate. They had to create a separate section and register this onestudent so that he could get the e-rate for the online lecture portion of theclass.

Steve Sachs asked if there was a market for the e-rate.

Carole asked the group what courses they want to list in VCCSOnline. They need toknow what data to pull out of PeopleSoft so that students are clear regardingthe delivery method of courses. The basic challenge is regarding how manycampus meetings are required for any course listed in VCCS on-line. Studentshave the assumption that courses listed there are 100% web based. The coursecoding issue is related to this issue in that the definitions we employ forvarious courses are used by students for planning schedules across colleges. Thisissue will be discussed further at a future meeting when Rebecca Kittelbergeris present. Some of the issues may also be addressed as part of the positionpaper idea advanced by Carole Shultz.

IX.Course Coding Status

Tabled until Rebecca Kittelberger is present.

X. Learning Object Repository (LOR) Steering Committee Representation

• Carole Schultz said that the status of it is “up in the air.” The LOR is part of the first phase of the federal earmark which must be spent by September. The Chancellor wants an RFP to go out in March for an LOR that handles two facets: structured content and unstructured content.
• They want to form a steering committee with vice presidents, two members of the DDLC, ITS, and faculty.
• Inez Farrell asked how an LOR compared to the Blackboard Content Manager (Bb CM). Carole Schultz stated that the Bb CM would not have everything that an LOR does, such as intellectual property rights. She asked Tim Tirrell to explain issues with video. Tim stated that Bb CM does not “ramp up” and that not every VCCS faculty member is using Blackboard (limiting faculty access). There is also an issue of how you search for video. The VCCS needs something that will tie all these things together.
• Tim and Carole participated in a project with other colleges and systems regarding the use of LORs. The project participants tended to avoid evaluation of Blackboard and WebCT since they are proprietary products, and a goal of that group was to make LOR content accessible by the widest possible range of faculty end users.
• Ruth Smith stated that a content system such as Blackboard is good for sharing content, but totally different from an LOR.
• The difference of indexing and searching capabilities was brought up.
• Steve Sachs also mentioned that many faculty do not want content that is only accessible from Blackboard.
• Carole stated that the DDLC needs to reconcile what meets the VCCS needs. She also stated that we need to pull librarians into this group.
• Rebecca Blankenship volunteered to represent the DDLC on the LOR steering committee.

XI.Other Business

Portal –Scott Langhorst

Scott stated that TCC will have a working portal by the end of the semester. TCC hasa “portal engineer” and they have a Campus EAI grant from Oracle, but they arenot sure if they are going to accept it, because the grant requires a five-yearcommitment. They have a 60-day prototype period now. They have a contentmanagement team for this portal project and they will also be giving apresentation at New Horizons. What Matt Lawson has done with Directory Services2 is very helpful for the portal project – the underlying single login.

Mary ClareDiGiacomo shared information regarding a proposed bill in the General Assembly suggestingthe creation of an Office of Learning Technology at SCHEV. At the moment,there is a learning technology advisory committee to SCHEV. Carole Schultz, Tim Tirrell, Scott Langhorst, and Laura Franklin represent the VCCS on it. MaryClare noted that the proposed legislation is currently tabled in a Housecommittee.

Inez Farrell stated thatshe is doing a survey for here college looking at attrition and withdrawalrates to determine problem areas. She indicated that a similar survey at theVCCS level would be helpful to determine success rates across teachingmodalities.

Carole Schultz stated that asimilar report is run every year at the VCCS that indicates withdrawal and grade distributions for distance learning courses. This year Bob Vawter built queries to compare full-time faculty and adjunct grade distributions. Carole indicated that they are planning on presenting their preliminary findings tothe Council of Presidents (ACOP) in February and that it is on the Vice Presidents’agenda for March. John Downey suggested that after presentation to ACOP andthe VP group Carole may want to present the results to the DDLC as well.

John Downey also mentioned that the BRCC’s Educational Foundation Board found the data from the VCCS blackboard survey administeredlast summer to be very interesting, especially in regard to the numbers ofstudents still using dial-up etc. John asked whether the VCCS had plans toreplicate that study. Carole replied that it was part of a pilot study and theywould like to replicate it. In the survey, students generally stated that instructorsare the primary source of help for students with technology questions. Therefore faculty have a great need to know where students can be referred toget additional help for complex issues.

XII. Dateline 2009 and VCCS Distance Learning Plan – Where are we heading?

John Downey asked the group to review Dateline2009, the Chancellor’s current goals, and the VCCS Distance Learning Plan from2001. John suggested that the DDLC ought to advise the System regarding howcolleges could best be positioned to respond to the objectives outlined inthese documents. In John’s view, the DDLC has a role in advising the systemwhat needs to be done in order for colleges to effectively contribute to thosegoals. John suggested that Carole’s idea of a position paper might be aneffective tool for outlining for the Vice Chancellor the perspective of theDDLC relative to Dateline 2009. It was suggested that DDLC volunteers formwork groups and write a position paper on the suggested resources required atthe colleges and the VCCS to accomplish Dateline 2009 goals. The groupagreed that the next meeting could be devoted to a work group drafting and/orediting a position paper. John Downey agreed to solicit volunteers to work onthe project to produce a draft for committee members to react to, debate, editand revise at the next meeting.

XIII.Next meeting:

The TechnologyCouncil meets April 4-5 in Charlottesville. Members suggested that the DDLC have an electronic meeting a few weeks before the next Tech Council meeting todiscuss relevant issues and work on the position paper draft. One memberadvised John to work around the blackboard training scheduled for March. Therefore the next meeting of the DDLC will be on Friday March 25, 2005, and it will bean electronic meeting. Details on the technology that will be used for themeeting will be sent out in early March.

At the end of the meeting Tim Tirrell gave the group a handout from the Alliance of HigherEducation Competitiveness with a summary of findings for what makes internetlearning successful.

There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.