eLearning Advisory Council

Minutes

February 2, 2006

NSU’s eLearning Advisory Council was called into session on February 2, 2006, in the Natchitoches Room of Russell Hall, at 3:30.

Present: Emily Perritt, Darlene Williams, Bill Lomerson, Lisa Abney, Michael Matthews, Joe Morris, Tom Hanson, Paula Christensen, Cynthia Lindsey, Bill Housel, Tara Gallien, Norann Planchock, Karen McFerrin

Absent: Jim McCrory, Debra Shelton, Mary Edith Stacy, Rocky Colavito, Patrice Moulton, Jennifer Long, Tom Hall, Matthew Bartley

Item 1: Approval of Minutes

On the motion of Dr. Hanson and a second by Joe Morris, the minutes of the November 3, 2005 meeting of the E-Learning Advisory Council were approved.

Item 2: E-Learning Guidelines

Darlene informed the council that the E-Learning Guidelines document has been approved by the President’s Cabinet.  It is now posted on the Electronic and Continuing Education web site. Darlene thanked everyone for their assistance with the process of writing and adopting the guidelines.

Item 3: Draft of SREB Action Plans

Darlene reminded everyone that the draft of Action Plans in response to the SREB report was posted on the President’s web site.  If there are recommendations for changes, we need to go ahead and make revisions.  She asked that everyone go back over the action plans.  Some names of parties responsible and parties involved may need to be amended.   

Dr. Lomerson suggested that we have changes ready by the next meeting.  Darlene asked that everyone send suggestions via email, and then we can send out revisions to the committee for review prior to the next meeting.  Darlene stressed the importance of input from as many people as possible.

Item 4: Title III Update

Darlene announced that the Title III Kickoff meeting was scheduled for the evening after the E-Learning Advisory Council Meeting.  She told the group that the new Media Development Specialist had been hired and that we had just made a recommendation for the Instructional Technology Specialist position.  That person is scheduled to start on March 1. 

Dr. Lomerson asked what the Instructional Technology Specialist would be doing.  Darlene explained that the ITS would be working with faculty with development of content, layout, overall design of courses, and content delivery strategies.

Dr. Christensen asked how soon faculty would be able to incorporate video into a class. Darlene said that faculty could begin using video now.  However, she stressed that the new person hired would be consumed quickly by the demands of the Title III project and that the Title III project would be that person’s top priority. 

Item 5: Syllabi on the Web

The syllabi being pulled by the course submission database for display on the eNSU web site with the course lists are not the most current syllabi.  There have been issues especially with book information. 

Dr. Hanson asked if the syllabi were being pulled from the SACS database. 

Faculty members asked how the syllabi could be edited.  They discussed different scenarios in which not having the most current or applicable syllabus was a problem.  Dr. Hanson said that not having an accurate syllabus posted to the web site was a SACS issue as well as a web site issue.  Dr. Lindsey said that the syllabi that were currently being pulled for display on the web were the syllabi that Dr. Scheffler had asked for.  Dr. Hanson said that he would look into getting a standard set of information that should be included in every syllabus.  Dr. Lomerson mentioned that text books can change every semester.  Dr. Planchock said that faculty should be able to change the syllabus in the system. 

Dr. Hanson said that the syllabi should be updated in the SACS database.  However, he suggested that each course have a standard syllabus.  Each instructor could have his or her own course calendar and administration document separate from this generic syllabus.  Discussion followed about what the standard syllabus might look like.

Dr. Abney suggested that we go back to entering in syllabi upon course submission.  Dr. Hanson reminded the group that part of the problem with that process was that ECE staff had to convert the syllabi to HTML.  Darlene replied that a work order could be submitted to Information Systems to correct that problem. 

Dr. Lindsey said that each course had to have a general syllabus.  If the general syllabus could be the one posted on the web, that would solve the problem.  Dr. Christensen replied that the general syllabus would also help students decide whether they want to take the course or not.  Dr. Hanson listed some items that should be included in this syllabus: Name, Description, Objectives, Expected Outcomes, General Activities. 

Tara Gallien asked if SACS had certain requirements for syllabi.  Dr. Hanson said that they did.  Discussion followed regarding the feasibility of having one “overview syllabus” for each course and referring students to instructors’ administration sheets for specific requirements related to each section. 

Dr. McFerrrin asked the committee to consider how the most up to date syllabi for online classes can be electronically entered for display on the web site.  Dr. Hanson offered to take this issue to the SACS committee.  He said that he would bring back a sample of a general syllabus to the next E-Learning Advisory Council meeting. 

Item 6: Internet Monitors and Attendance System

Joe Morris asked that the committee address the issue of course monitors not having access to the online attendance system for the classes that they monitor.  He said that monitors needed access in order to verify that attendance was being entered as required.  Dr. Hanson offered to take the issue back to Information Systems. 

Joe passed out his weekly Internet monitor sheet that he asks his faculty to fill out. 

Item 7: Attendance for Online Students

Dr. Hanson mentioned that Internet classes pose problems for the attendance system.  He said that the attendance system cannot talk to Blackboard.  At one time, faculty were told to post attendance for each school day.  He has since changed the policy.  Faculty should pick one day a week and post weekly attendance on that day.  If, for example, Friday is the day that the instructor has chosen to mark attendance, a student would be marked “present” on Friday if the student attended during the week prior.  Darlene stressed that this policy needs to be communicated to faculty.  The current policy was not the one posted on the Attendance web site.  Several faculty members mentioned that they had received a memo outlining the new policy. However, several said that they had not received the memo.  Dr. Hanson said that he would follow up on getting the statement changed on the web site.

Item 8: Different Meeting Time

Dr. Abney mentioned that she had a conflict at 3:30 on Thursdays.  Dr. Hanson offered to cross reference the teaching schedules of members of the council to see what times would be best. 

Dr. Lomerson mentioned that the next meeting of the E-Learning Advisory Council was scheduled for the Thursday after Mardi Gras.  He asked the committee if they thought we should consider moving the meeting to another day.  On a motion by Dr. Hanson and a second by Joe Morris, the next meeting of the E-Learning Advisory Council was moved to Thursday, March 9. 

Item 9: Faculty/Staff Training Needs Assessment

Emily Perritt explained to the council that the purpose of the Faculty/Staff Training Needs Assessments is to find out what kind of training sessions ECE should offer.  The SREB reviewers gave some suggestions for updating our needs assessment instruments to include faculty members’ interest in productivity tools, developing “web enhanced” courses, developing “hybrid” courses, and developing fully online courses.  They also suggested that items be included to assess faculty interest in pedagogy and learning to teach online. 

As part of the action plans in response to the SREB Report, we are bringing these instruments to the council for review.  Dr. Hanson suggested that the SREB’s changes be incorporated into the needs assessment documents and then the documents should be reviewed by the council. 

Dr. Planchock asked how the surveys are disseminated.  Darlene said that normally the assessments are sent out in hard copy.  Dr. Lomerson suggested using Survey Monkey.  Mike Matthews mentioned that Survey Monkey could analyze the responses for us.  A deadline was set for one week from the meeting to send preliminary comments about the survey back to Emily and for Emily to incorporate the SREB comments into the existing survey instruments.

Item 10: Adjunct Contracts

Joe Morris stated that he wanted more control over the contract issues for his adjuncts whose contracts were being completed by ECE.  He said that he would like to do his own contracts. Darlene told him that his department could handle their own contracts if they preferred to do so. 

Item 11: TEACH Act

Darlene mentioned the TEACH Act, which deals with copyright in the classroom. There are some requirements for institutions that are related specifically to online teaching.  Notice must be provided to students that course materials may be copyrighted.  Darlene was unsure if a statement on the Blackboard login page would cover NSU, or if a statement would have to be put into every course in Blackboard. 

Mike Matthews said that he had sent out a PDF of Southeastern’s copyright handbook.  He would send it out again. Darlene suggested that a web page be developed with all of this information on it.  Mike said that the library could do that.

Tara Gallien suggested that if a copyright statement needed to be included in every course, it could be another statement automatically included in every syllabus like the ADA statement. 

The February 2nd meeting of the eLearning Advisory Council was adjourned at 4:40 PM.