Faculty Senate

Distance Education Committee

November 29 , 2006
Minutes

Present: Brett Jeter, Bill McCaughan, Mark Wilson (Chair), Paul Primak, Ghadeer Filimbag, Mark Merickel (guest), Maureen Kelley (via distance), Penny Diebold (via distance), Mark Dinsmore
Notes: Sarah Williams

1. Internal Policies
1. Intellectual Rights
1. The Faculty Senate visited this topic in 2000 and 2001.  Furthermore, the Oregon Administrative Rules already cover the broader issues.
2. After some discussion about both the state and the federal law the Chair had recommended eliminating this policy as moot, but, Mark Wilson agreed to contact Maureen Kelley via email and have further discussion before the committee takes action

2. Defining the scope of the committee: The committee continued its previous discussion about how to define distance education. Some comments included the following:
   • Bill McCaughan felt that there should be a focus on credit courses, both those that satisfy requirements for a degree, and stand alone courses.  Non-credit is so broad and defined in many different ways, so a policy would have to be very general.
   • Using Section 400 also is too narrow within OSU, since going through Ecampus is different from distance education.
   • Brett Jeter reminded the committee that internships include both on campus and off campus learning. 
   • Ghadeer Filimbag noted that distance education includes several modalities, including online and video.  Bill suggested adding this wording to the first sentence: “…and communicate primarily via the application of technologies.”   
   • Asynchronous courses on campus are a department and curriculum issue.  Brett pointed out that there are increasing numbers of on campus students and Corvallis students who choose to take online courses, which impact instructors’ office hours and other services. 
   • Mark Merickel suggested that within the non-campus based modality, the critical elements are student services, though the baseline is quality.  Services need to be elevated in the consideration of distance education.
   • Bill concluded that we are building a campus through which people access their education.  Therefore, the present wording on asynchronous course delivery should be retained, and we have a better understanding of what that means. 
   • Action: The amended policy statement is accepted.  Mark Wilson stated that the committee now has a set of policies that are approved.

2. Continuing Projects
1. Draft policy on course assessment and review
   1. Action: Refine the wording of the statement.
   2. Action: Decide what supporting materials go onto our Web site
   3. Action: Agree on a plan for approaching the interested committees and administrators.

This discussion was tabled due to poor telecommunications with off-site members.

2. Policy on promotion and tenure: Mark W. had circulated comments from the P&T and the Faculty Status Committees.  He incorporated their suggestions into the present draft policy.  Additions are underlined.  Number 5 is still an issue.  Our purpose is to hammer out the wording, take it to the Vice Provost and then to the P&T Committee.
• Mark M. commended the committee on this step forward.  He had not seen modified #5, but distributed some recommendations (Curriculum and Course Content as Scholarship)   He reviewed the four bullets, emphasizing that distance education course content is considered scholarly or creative activity. 
• Bill referred to #5: the process for materials generated related to a course does not have an adequate outlet for review and validation.  The current RFP for research projects could include development of a process with other institutions.  Mark M. responded that Ecampus would support this. 
• Bill cited the materials created by Mark Wilson for his courses online, and the issue that there is no process for other faculty to use this material for their online instruction.  Mark Merickel added that there are ways for curriculum to be validated, including databases where you can share content and have it reviewed.  If the DE Committee presented this it would be helpful.
• Mark Dinsmore noted that the problem is that technology keeps changing, making it difficult to compile an “electronic dossier.”  Mark W. suggested that the DE Committee could address a policy that favors providing such services to faculty.
• Bill suggested that it might be worth identifying some organizations like Merlot and work together to put together a national group to formalize this process.
• Mark Merickel added that the change in P&T Guidelines has opened up the possibility of interpretation.  If we can articulate to faculty the ways to do this and present models, we would be far ahead of other universities.  Bill noted that textbooks are also now appearing in electronic form. 
• Mark Wilson mentioned that the DE Committee Policy should probably be to promote guidelines, like those specified in Mark Merickel’s draft, rather than to implement guidelines.  
• Mark Merickel emphasized that addressing this issue with the P&T Committee will move them in the direction of examining distance education with better understanding.  Faculty will also benefit by getting credit for their work and motivation to pursue this kind of work. 
• Action:  Mark Wilson will revise item #5 to three versions with three levels and distance education specific for the next meeting’s discussion. 
• The group continued to work on points 1-4.  Action:  Number 1.  Courses offered….Leave as is. Number 2. Include “promotion dossiers” in 1, 2, and 4. Number 4:  Suggests “can be” instead of “is.”


3. Other: Mark will send out an email about the next meeting.