eLearning Advisory Council
Minutes
September 15, 2005
NSU’s eLearning Advisory Council was called into session on September 15, 2005, in the Natchitoches Room of Russell Hall, at 3:45.
Present: Emily Perritt, Michael Matthews, Bill Housel, Joe Morris, Norann Planchock, Lisa Abney, Darlene Williams, Paula Christensen, Karen McFerrin, Tom Hanson, Jim McCrory, Bill Lomerson, Patrice Moulton, Debra Shelton
Absent: Tom Hall, Rocky Colavito, Tara Gallien, Cynthia Lindsey, Jennifer Long, Mary Edith Stacy Matthew Bartley
Item 1: Approval of Minutes
On the motion of Dr. Paula Christensen and a second by Dr. Tom Hanson, the minutes of the September 1st meeting of the E-Learning Advisory Council were approved.
Item 2: Electronic Learning Guidelines
Dr. Lomerson asked Darlene for an update on where we were with the process of approving the Electronic Learning Guidelines. Darlene replied that there were still some issues with the language in the document that needed to be worked out before we would be ready to approve the guidelines. Her recommendation was for everyone to give the draft another read-through and submit suggested changes or for a subcommittee to be formed to address the issues.
Dr. Hanson moved for the creation of a subcommittee of not less than four members of the council who will review and submit suggestions to the committee via email. Dr. Planchock seconded the motion. Dr. Lomerson then asked for volunteers for the committee. Dr. Christensen, Dr. Abney, and Debra Shelton volunteered to serve on the committee. Dr. Hanson suggested that Darlene chair the committee, and she agreed to do so.
Item 3: Update from Joe Morris – Adjunct Mentoring Process
Joe Morris shared the documents being used in his pilot mentoring project. The documents included a letter being sent to students, a letter for adjunct faculty, and a letter to the faculty who are mentoring the new adjuncts.
Problems that have arisen so far include students sending too many emails without including their courses and section numbers in the subject, and monitoring of monitors being more time consuming than previously anticipated. To address the email issue, a sentence has been added to the student letters that will go out next semester.
Joe reported that he believes that course quality will be improved by this mentoring process.
Debra Shelton asked how the Blackboard knowledge of these adjunct instructors was being assessed. Joe responded that he had to take the word of the instructors. Some of the adjuncts that have been hired did not have extensive Blackboard experience, but they are now learning.
Joe Morris asked the group to let him know if there were any suggestions to improve the letters that were being used and welcomed everyone to use the documents for their own programs.
Dr. Planchock asked how they know if the faculty are logging in. Joe responded that he was using course statistics within Blackboard. He is listed in each of the courses as a zero-load instructor.
Dr. McFerrin asked Joe if he was having problems with getting too much email from students as a result of being listed as an instructor in all of the classes in his department. He replied that seeing the email was another way for him to see if there were problems in the courses.
Darlene asked Joe to continue to update us on this project.
Item 4: Process for Evaluation of Adjuncts
Darlene asked if student evaluations of teaching were sufficient for evaluation of adjuncts, or if more needed to be done to evaluate adjuncts.
Dr. Christensen asked how far faculty monitor responsibilities go. What kind of load do the monitors have? How many adjuncts can be monitored at once?
Dr. Planchock stated that the College of Nursing does not evaluate regular adjunct instructors. If adjuncts are not performing, they simply are not rehired. Dr. McFerrin added that the same approach is taken by the College of Education.
Dr. Moulton stated that we needed to make sure the same things were being done for online adjuncts as for face to face adjuncts in order to comply with SACS standards. Dr. Planchock stated that face to face adjuncts are not evaluated beyond the student evaluations of teaching. Dr. Hanson added that the student evaluations are the evaluations of adjuncts.
Dr. Planchock said that student complaints related to adjunct faculty are addressed as they come up.
It was decided that evaluations of adjuncts just need to be documented appropriately. Whatever is done for face to face adjuncts needs to be done for online adjuncts.
Item 5: Action Plans in Response to SREB Report
Darlene announced to the council members that we need to move forward in writing action plans to address the recommendations made by the SREB review that had been distributed to the group. When NCHEMS reviewers come back to campus next month, they will be looking for our responses to all external reviews. She suggested that this could be accomplished in several ways. Members could each be assigned to address certain recommendations, we could have a small retreat, or Electronic and Continuing Education staff could draft responses to be reviewed and edited by the council. The NCHEMS visit will be the 12th of October. The action plans need to be drafted, approved, and posted before the visit.
Michael Matthews stated that he would like to address the library section.
Dr. Lomerson stated that he thought it would be best for Darlene to draft the plans and get feedback from the council. Darlene replied that the responses address all areas of the university and that she did not think she could speak for every unit without input from everyone on the council. Dr. Planchock said that she thought it would be easier if the members of the council worked with Darlene to help get the responses done. Dr. Christensen suggested that everyone read and respond to what they can. She moved that each committee member take the responsibility of reading the recommendations and responding to what they could. Michael Matthews seconded the motion.
All members were instructed to email responses to Darlene by Tuesday, September 20. Darlene stated that she had already created a template for the action plans and that she would send this to Dr. Lomerson for distribution to the group.
Item 6: Semester Start-up Procedures
This item had been requested by Dr. Lindsey, who was absent at this meeting. It was decided that the item would be tabled until the next meeting.
Other Business: Mission
Dr. Lomerson suggested that the mission of the eLearning Advisory Council needed to be defined more clearly. Dr. Hanson said that everyone should have received a statement about the role and mission of the council when asked to join. Darlene said that a web page would be built for the council that included the council’s mission, members, and minutes.
The September 15th meeting of the eLearning Advisory Council was adjourned at 4:25 PM.