skip page navigationOregon State University
OSU Home.|Calendar.|Find Someone.|Maps.|Site Index.

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » February 26, 2007 Minutes

Distance Education Committee

February 26, 2007
Minutes

Present: Mark Wilson, Mark Merickel (ex officio, Extended Campus), Ghadeer Filimban, Maureen Kelly (ex officio, Library Committee), Kay Stevens, Tom Shellhammer (ex officio, Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee), Penny Diebel, Paul Primak, Mark Dinsmore, Brett Jeter

  1. Policy on Promotion and Tenure
    1. Mark has not heard back from the P&T Committee on the wording, but the Chairman of the P&T Committee expected a favorable response. No response yet from the Vice Provost’s office. Mark Wilson will follow up.

  2. Liaison with the Curriculum Council
    1. Report: Mark Wilson reviewed the context of his report to the Curriculum Council: when an existing course gets a distance course added, should this trigger a curriculum review? Is there a conflict of interest? A subcommittee of the Curriculum Council will prepare a report and will include a member of Ecampus, Alfonso Bradoch.

    2. Response:
      1. Quality.  Penny Diebel remarked that a Category II review would not reveal quality of the course. Mark Merickel said that Ecampus would support research on the relative effectiveness of distance and face-to-face courses. This group could create questions and Ecampus would fund the research. Ghadeer Filimban is utilizing in her research simultaneous surveys of teachers and students. Penny suggested that we let the committee know that the DE Committee supports peer review of the courses and would like the CC to collaborate in this effort.  Mark Merickel distributed the NW Council on Colleges and Universities accrediting standards which Ecampus uses as standards (Mark will email these to Penny Diebel).

      2. What might require Category II review of distance sections? The current financial model will be operating for two more years. It is possible that the budget model has led to a different mix of instructors who are involved in face-to-face courses, with a higher proportion of fixed term instructors, adjunct professors, and GTAs. Mark Merickel reported that 69.2% of Ecampus faculty are tenured or tenure-track; that is high compared with other schools. We do not know the comparable figure for face-to-face courses. Maureen Kelley pointed out that distance sections put higher technical demands on libraries. She urged that the library system be involved when distance courses are created, such as during the Category II process.
        Action: Mark will summarize the discussion and share with the Curriculum Council.
  3. Policy on course assessment and review
    1. Identify the steps to complete this project: what do we need to do to complete the project.
      1. Refine the wording of the statement: Penny reviewed the materials on the website. The purpose of this policy is to make sure Ecampus courses are included in the evaluation process.  Penny went over the four points of the DRAFT Policy Statement on DE Course Assessment again. A discussion of whether to soften the language was resolved when Tom Shellhammer reminded us that FS committees recommend policy, not implement programs.  Action: The wording of the policy is acceptable.  This topic was revisited later in the meeting in discussion of #4 of the Policy:
          4) Online student evaluations of teaching and survey techniques will be developed that result in response rates no lower than rates from in-class evaluation tools. Instructors will utilize these on-line evaluation tools or other means to maximize response rates.
          Mark Dinsmore asked how mechanisms can be built for student evaluations online. Pressure from department chairs usually work best. Penny sends the questionnaire out with her last quiz, rather than online, since better results come from paper rather than online. Tom noted that policy #4 focuses on rate rather than student evaluations. Mark Dinsmore noted that we have exemplars for the other policy statements but not for #4. Perhaps we could change the wording to “parity with in-class evaluation tools.” The consensus was to reword policy #4 to emphasize the importance of student evaluations in peer review.
        Action: Mark Dinsmore and Paul Primak volunteered to work on this via email.

      2. Decide what supporting materials go onto our Web site
        1. Guidelines for Peer Teaching Evaluation.  Guidelines for Peer Teaching Evaluation were provided by Fisheries and Wildlife, edited by Penny to include distance courses specifically. The committee agreed that its role is to recommend that guidelines such as this be made available and be used. Penny suggested that a member of Ecampus (or someone else with knowledge of distance education) should be on the peer review committee to add background and expertise on the course delivery. Brett suggested that Ecampus provide a mentor for departments and new instructors when beginning course development. Penny added that the mentoring program could work through the Center for Teaching and Learning’s pool of exemplary teachers

        2. Ecampus Course Standards

        3. Suggested Elements for Review of Online Instruction
          Discussion. Mark Merickel stated that the policy statement could stand on its own, but wanted to make the supporting documents available as well. Tom pointed out that the supporting documents are models, good examples, rather than prescribed procedures. Action: The committee agreed that the supporting materials should be available to interested parties but separate from the policy statement.

      3. Agree on a plan for approaching the interested committees and administrators: Mark Merickel suggested sending a liaison to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee as a spokesperson, including the policy statement and the three documents above. All are a body of knowledge. We should not be prescriptive but propose how to administer this beyond the policy. Mark Wilson suggested that the cover letter to committees would be the place to include information about and links to the supporting materials. The FS Computing Committee was added to the list of liaison contacts.

      4. Mark asked for volunteers to evaluate the wording of the Guidelines (a).
        Action: Ghadeer and Kay will review it, from format to wording. Mark Merickel will send this to Paula and Alfonso for their review.  
        Action: Brett and Mark Dinsmore will review the design of our webpage as a portal to the supporting materials

  4. New business
    1. Staff fee requests (reduced tuition) do not apply to distance learning. Does this interest our committee? There are a limited number of courses available on some campuses so distance courses are appealing. Does Ecampus know how many staff take their courses? OSU was the last OUS institution to move away from the staff fee rates for distance courses; this is a matter of being able to pay the faculty. Ecampus was charged by the Provost and the Dean of Extension Service to support faculty who are not near campus. Ecampus did come up with a solution, which might eventually move to wider application but for non-resident staff and faculty only.
      Action: This item will be on the next agenda.

    2. Other new business: Exchange of distance education courses with institutions abroad.
      Action: This item will be addressed next time.

    3. Next Meeting: Spring Term.
      Action:  Mark Wilson will send out an email to the committee.

Minutes prepared by Sara Williams