Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable Online Learning Committee 2013 Report

1. Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable Online Learning Committee 2013 Report Updated - April 22, 2014

2. Committee Chairs Michael Zavada and Nancy Low-Hogan Committee Members Shayle Adrian – TLTC Mary Balkun – A&S Renee Cicchino – TLTC Regina Efimchik – A&S Joe Martinelli – CEHS Lysa Martinelli – TLTC Felella Millman – Nurs Danielle Mirliss – TLTC Amy Philips – TLTC Denise Rizzolo – SHMS Jack Shannon –Stillman Bert Wachsmuth – A&S Elizabeth Leonard-Library Rob Weitz – Stillman

3. Meeting Schedule 2013-2014 • The Committee held meetings on: • January 28, 2014 • February 25, 2014 • March 25, 2014 • April 22, 2014

4. Mission Identify and recommend institutional policies and practices on developing, delivering and supporting online courses, programs and/or degrees. Serve in an advisory capacity to CEPS and assist in the development of CEPS as the administrative structure that facilitates the development of online courses and programs with the colleges and schools within the University.

5. Recommendation #1 - Online/Hybrid Course Approval Requirement for all new online courses. • All new online or hybrid courses must be reviewed through TLTC and the QM rubric prior to being offered for the first time, including as an experimental and/or special topics course. Rationale: ensures quality of course which is a University priority even for experimental courses; increases likelihood of successful outcome for experimental courses. • All new online or hybrid courses must be reviewed through TLTC and QM rubric prior to being submitted to EPC for approval. Rationale: ensures quality of course which is a University priority; increases likelihood of successful outcome.

6. Recommendation #2 - Online/Hybrid Course Approval Requirement for all current online courses. • All current online or hybrid courses that have not gone through the QM review must be reviewed through QM. Instructors will have two years, commencing with the implementation of this policy, to complete the QM process. Rationale: ensures quality of the course which is a University priority.

7. Recommendation #3 - Quality Matters Re-review Requirement A re-review of online and hybrid courses can be requested by the faculty member or department chair as a result of course evaluations, peer review or accreditation. A re-review focuses on course design which includes content alignment and technology. The re-review does not include an evaluation of faculty or his/her performance. Rationale: design issues reviewed on a periodic basis ensure course quality and a positive experience for the faculty member and student.

8. Recommendation #4 – Faculty Training Requirement • Faculty new to online or hybrid teaching must be proficient in key aspects of the University’s adopted LMS, Blackboard in order to successfully facilitate an online or hybrid course. Training begins with a review of a check-list of key tools/functionalities for faculty to self-assess their knowledge of the LMS. Customized training is then provided by the TLTC via face-to-face and online training courses. Rationale: good training is essential to a quality experience for both instructor and student. • Faculty who teach courses with technology components (especially hybrid and online courses), should familiarize themselves with technologies used in their course and with the QM rubric.

9. Recommendation #5 – Course Assessment Requirement The assessment of online and hybrid courses is currently under the aegis of the respective schools/colleges. We recommend that assessments of online and hybrid courses take into consideration the unique technology environment of the online and hybrid course. Rationale: The “technology environment” should be assessed.

10. Recommendation #6: Hybrid Courses Designation Definition: A hybrid course is defined as any course have 30% or more of “traditional in-seat time” offered online. Hybrid courses must be reviewed according to QM standards for online courses. Hybrid courses should have a special designation assigned by the Registrar’s Office. Rationale: students need this information in order to make informed decisions about the courses they take.

11. Online & Hybrid Course Development Workbook A guide that outlines the process for developing online and hybrid courses at Seton Hall University has been developed consistent with the recommendations of the TLTR Online Learning Committee. The objective of the workbook is to provide the tools needed to develop the material for a pedagogically sound and effective online or hybrid course.

12. Resources The Sloan Consortium – http://sloanconsortium.org/http://sloanconsortium.org/ Quality Matters – https://www.qualitymatters.org Growing Your Own Blended and Online Faculty: A Review Of Faculty Development Practices In Traditional Institutions. Elizabeth Ciabocchi, Ed.D., Amy Ginsberg, Ph.D. Long Island University See I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011 (Babson Survey Research Group) Competencies for Online Instructors – Larry Ragan http://ets.tlt.psu.edu/learningdesign/onlinecontent/instructors CENTER for INNOVATIVE TEACHING and TECHNOLOGY – Hillsborough Community College Faculty Self-Assessment: Preparing for Online Teaching – Penn State https://weblearning.psu.edu/FacultySelfAssessment/ Preparing and Teaching a distance learning online course – Saint Leo University http://www.saintleo.edu/media/487832/quickguideforfacultydevelopingcourses.pdf 17 ELEMENTS OF GOOD ONLINE COURSES -By Doug Madden, Honolulu Community College. Teaching Online: A Practical Guide - Susan Ko, Steve Rossen 2010

13. Next Steps and Approvals