Present: Marti Ayers, Lynn Bain, Beth Camp, John Griffith, Mike Holland, Susan Knights, Phil Krolick, Elizabeth Lundy, Marlene Propst, Gary Ruppert, Evonne Rutherford, Carol Schaafsma, Twila Skelley (student representative), Ann Smart, Sharyn Smith, Paul Snyder, Ed Watson, Peggy Weems, Chuck Wert
1. What underlying assumptions and values should guide DEIT as it develops a work plan for the next academic year and beyond?
Beth and a group consisting of Paul Snyder, Susan Boyanovsky, Chuck Wert, Elizabeth Lundy, and John Griffith worked on the committee's mission, goals and underlying assumptions. Beth passed out a handout and went over it with the committee. She gave a brief history of the committee. It began eight years ago as a small group to work on technology and provide support for each other. It then reached the committee stage. It is not a standing committee of Instructional Council but has been approved as an official college committee (see Administrative Rule A101 attached). DEIT's goal has always been to integrate technology, help others come up the learning curve, support training (Summer Institute and short term training for staff), add and clarify policy (such as campus computer use), make budget recommendations, help solve problems, and stress the importance of distance learning which affects all areas of the campus. As an example of how LBCC has enhanced its flexibility to meet changing needs, Beth said she was very impressed with how the Student Services Division went from telephone registration to online registration in under two years. Ann said she felt the group did a great job of looking at the vision and goals and updating them. Ed felt student learning should be in the DEIT mission or part of goal #5. Beth said Diane Watson had asked for more emphasis on marketing and our potential international scope. Paul stressed the document was still a draft, being part of an ongoing changing process.
2. Group discussion of the four tentative DEIT goals set out in Mike Holland's September 14 memo.
1. LBCC needs to strengthen the technical and student support systems that surround its distributed learning efforts. In regard to technical systems, special attention must be paid to fully developing the potential of the ITFS system, and to incorporating the ColdFusion tool into instructional delivery systems. In regard to student support systems, special attention must be paid to developing even more sophisticated on-line advising, admissions, financial aid, and career placement tools. Student success, student recruitment, and student retention must remain paramount goals in our quest to develop better technical and student support systems.
The committee felt #1 should be divided into technical support systems and student support systems. The paragraph was divided after the second sentence. Ann Smart felt both pieces are pretty far along and should not be #1 and #2.
2. LBCC must remain committed at all times to the delivery of high quality educational programming. We believe that the quality of a student's educational experience in a distributed learning environment is enhanced by clear and measurable performance and participation expectations. Further, we believe that distributed learning environments require students to assume significant independent responsibility for their learning.
Regarding #2 (renumbered to #3), Carol Schaafsma pointed out the importance of external benchmarking, where we are compared to our competitors and industry. Lynn felt the goals of this subcommittee were more biased to the student side and that measurement of delivery was important as well as student achievement. She said she really liked the handout Beth gave at the last meeting which dealt with maintaining standards in the distance education course. Regarding the last sentence, John Griffith felt student responsibility should not be a goal. We can encourage but can't force a student to assume responsibility for his/her learning. Beth questioned where there was inspiration to improve programs. Ed suggested we not have distributed education institutional program review as a goal because it is a much larger topic. DEIT should not have to address program review. Beth said two years ago when we were looking at host/provider courses, we developed criteria for courses developed by other schools to see if they met our standards. Mike said he would not rule out assessment being high with this committee. Carol and Beth will work on the assessment piece.
3. LBCC must identify and address barriers that limit faculty participation in distributed learning programs and courses. At a minimum, better incentives, training, and technical support are needed to increase participation levels. Once in place, the enhanced incentives, training opportunities, and technical support systems must be effectively marketed to the faculty.
#3 (renumbered to #4) - Paul asked how do we get to the next level. We need to strengthen the statement and move it to #1 in importance. Gary wondered if we should mention incentives and dollars. Paul felt we are not currently frontloading, but merely recycling what we already do in the way of course offerings by distributed learning. How can we have better programs? Marti said she has money for development and per the faculty contract each faculty member can have up to 30 hours of curriculum development for a 3-credit class. However, very few people have shown any interest. Right now she has five active grants. On the application it is clear that it is for instructional technology as well as distance delivery. Ed questioned whether we can force this on faculty. Paul suggested we can't support faculty development without adding more support staff. He said we are seeing new faculty who are not just expecting a high level of technology but demanding it. Ed thinks there will be more activity when the ITV classes grow.
4. LBCC must develop curricular offerings that fully complement the needs of learners who operate comfortably in distributed learning environments. On-line testing, on-line assessments for high school students, rigorous mastery learning systems, additional on-line short term training courses, imported classes from non-LBCC providers are but a few of the expanded offerings that should become available.
#4 (renumbered to #5) - Ann suggested this goal should specifically mention ITFS and telecourses.
3. Development of action strategies for each of the edited goals. Action strategies will be DEIT's immediate work plan and will determine the number and kind of committees needed for the coming year.
Attendees indicated interest in the following DEIT subcommittees:
Student Support - assigned #2. Paul Snyder, Diane Watson, Ann Adams, Lynn Bain Ann said in the past this has been a very large group with many non-DEIT members.
ITFS - assigned #1. Paul Snyder, Penny York (Lynn will ask her), Susan Knights, Rich Horton, Ann Adams
Quality & Assessment - assigned #3. Chuck Wert, Ed Watson, Carol Schaafsma
Barriers - assigned #4. Beth Camp, Gary Ruppert, Ann Smart, Paul Snyder, Chuck Wert, John Griffith
Curriculum - assigned #5. Chuck Wert, Ed Watson, Carol Schaafsma
Mike said Carol and Beth will do the wordsmithing. He invited everyone on the committee to volunteer for a subcommittee. It was agreed that the committee will ask Jon Carnahan to come to the next meeting.
Ann Smart asked about the structure of the Technology subcommittee. Historically this subcommittee supports the standing committees and also works on the technology infrastructure and on technology fee activities. Mike said he will talk to Ann Adams about this subcommittee.
Beth Camp has agreed to chair the committee for this year.
The next meeting will be Friday, November 17, at 2:00 p.m. in the Willamette Room.
October 4, 2000
To: DEIT Committee
From: Paul Snyder, Susan Boyanovsky, Chuck Wert, Beth Camp, Elizabeth Lundy, and John Griffith
SUBJECT: DRAFT of Revised DEIT Vision, Mission, and Goals 2000-2001
As part of clarifying our DEIT-related tasks in the coming year, we've been asked to review DEIT's vision, mission, general goals, and processes. We feel this is a helpful task because we have new people on the committee and because our experiences continue to shape the role of distributed learning at LBCC.
VISION: Widen LBCC's "open door" by using distributed learning and instructional technologies to expand and enhance student success and learning opportunities and experiences.
MISSION:
1. To guide LBCC's delivery of quality instruction and the use of existing and future technologies to improve student success and access to education, training and information.
2. To foster innovation and advocate the appropriate use of instructional technology by students and staff.
3. To improve access to education for students by reducing or eliminating barriers to the learning environment.
GOALS:
1. To promote greater understanding of how technology can support staff growth and development.
2. To develop short- and long-term plans for distributed learning that address staffing and budgeting issues and that include appropriate external partnerships.
3. To foster innovation and encourage partnerships between teaching and technology.
4. To encourage opportunities for professional development, while recognizing and encouraging staff leadership in integrating and disseminating best practices.
5. To develop and improve appropriate assessment tools and processes that will support student retention and success, curricular improvements, and college strategic planning.
6. To identify and facilitate distributed learning programs that offer students opportunities to reach their educational goals outside of the traditional ten-week term.
7. To actively monitor and respond appropriately to the evolving needs of our students.
COLLEGE APPROVED DESCRIPTION OF DEIT:
Here is the current wording of Administrative Rule A101, "College Councils and Committees" We recommend changing all references from Distance Education to Distributed Education (including our committee name).
This committee is empowered to implement the staff training, technological infrastructure, and instructional technology to meet the LBCC Distance Education Mission and Goals. The group identifies guidelines for the delivery of instruction using technology, including an AAOT by distance education, and proposes marketing strategies. The group coordinates policies of, and planning for, instructional technology.
1. Dean, Institutional Advancement/Executive Assistant to the President
2. Two-three Instructional/Workforce Directors
3. Dean, Student Services
4. Vice President, Academic Affairs
5. Coordinator, Media/Distance Education
6. Twelve - fourteen faculty from various divisions
7. Coordinator, Staff/Organizational Development
8. Director, Information Services
9. Director, Marketing/Public Relations
10. Student Representative
11. Ad hoc members as needed from Internet, media, and PC networking support staff
Additionally, here is an informal description of how DEIT has functioned over the last several years.
PROCESS: Historically, DEIT has been supported by the President's Office and chaired by an appointed or elected faculty member working with a senior administrator. Each year the full committee has completed a goal setting process and reorganized itself into work groups matching the prioritized goals. DEIT members are drawn from administrative and curricular areas of the campus. In addition to those representatives named in the Administrative Rule above, new people have been invited (or nominate themselves) to serve on DEIT each year, and they have served on a work group of their choice. DEIT subcommittees have elected their own chairs, completed a "goals setting" process at the work group level, and reported their progress to the complete DEIT committee throughout the year (the full DEIT committee meeting at least once each term), and in a year-end report.
October 11, 2000
MEMO
TO: DEIT Committee
FROM: Mike Holland
SUBJECT: DEIT Chair, Subcommittee Chairs
I'm pleased to announce that Beth Camp has agreed to serve as this year's chair of DEIT. Beth returns to a role that she has filled in past years, and brings to the job obvious enthusiasm and commitment. Beth will organize and schedule our "end of quarter" DEIT meeting and invite Jon to that meeting.
I also am pleased to announce that our subcommittee chairs are: Student Support, Diane Watson; ITFS, Rich Horton; Barriers, John Griffith; and Quality/Assessment/Offerings, Carol Schaafsma. A less formal technical working group, led by Paul Snyder, will continue to work on a number of technical issues, including the incorporation of the ColdFusion tool into our instructional delivery systems. Representatives of Paul's group may decide to attend meetings of all the subcommittees.
Chairs should schedule their first meetings as soon as possible and ensure that all interested parties are invited. My notes on our editing of the "committee charges" are not models of clarity, so let me offer up the following and invite better notetakers to correct my mistakes. I will forward all "corrections" to the subcommittee chairs:
ITFS: LBCC needs to strengthen the technical systems that surround its distributed learning efforts. Special attention must be paid to fully developing the potential of the ITFS system. (Volunteers/Nominees: R. Horton, P. Snyder, P. York, A. Adams, S. Knights).
Student Support: In regard to student support systems, special attention must be paid to developing even more sophisticated on-line advising, admissions, financial aid, and assessment tools. Student success, student recruitment, and student retention must remain paramount goals in our quest to develop better student support systems. (Volunteers/Nominees: D. Watson, P. Snyder, L. Bain, A. Adams).
Barriers: LBCC must identify and address barriers that limit faculty participation in distributed learning programs and courses. At a minimum, better incentives, training, and technical support are needed to increase participation levels. Once in place, the enhanced incentives, training opportunities, and technical support must be effectively marketed to the faculty. (Volunteers/Nominees: J. Griffith, B. Camp, G. Ruppert, P. Snyder, C. Wert, A. Smart).
Quality/Assessment/Offerings: LBCC must remain committed at all times to the delivery of high quality educational programming. The quality of a student's educational experience in a distributed learning environment is enhanced by clear and measurable performance and participation expectations. Quality measures may include some reference to external benchmarks of performance, and should also evaluate (in addition to student achievement) the quality of delivery systems. This subcommittee shall also review current distributed offerings and recommend additions as appropriate. (Volunteers/Nominees: C. Schaafsma, E. Watson, C. Wert).