Meeting & Agendas

The minutes were approved.

Town hall conducted to discuss usage of Blackboard with good attendance. Discussions conducted about the interface of Blackboard, participants enjoyed the event. Recommendation to do annual Blackboard town halls to answer faculty questions and provide guidance. Rachel Barrera: beneficial experience for staff and faculty, positive reception. Herb Coleman brought up in the Instructional Technology committee meeting about creating a Google Town Hall event to discuss best practices, challenges of the platform. Larry Stephens: conducting the town hall events during DE Symposium would be a good opportunity to increase attendance.

DE Proctoring experienced resources challenges to meet department needs. Hiring personnel is being addressed. Faculty are encouraged to use other proctoring tools if they can meet their needs (Respondus Monitor, etc.). DE Proctoring manager currently in the process of being hired, currently being facilitated by a TAP-paid student services manager. The new DE Proctoring manager will be in a position to hire more support staff and meet students’ needs. Faculty-led proctoring is available using Respondus Instructor Live Proctoring. Jack O’Grady: question about DE Proctoring usage for hybrid courses. Erasmus Addae (response): this is subject to personnel availability. Jack O’Grady: question about in-person proctoring for DE courses for students with technology limitations or privacy concerns. Erasmus Addae (response): locations identified in campus learning labs and ACCelerators for students to do proctoring if needed on a first come, first serve basis. Waiting or IT to install Respondus on the computers in these locations. Available in EVC/RRC/HLC/RVS. Herb Coleman: question about usage of iPads for Respondus proctoring. Erasmus Addae (response): 1000 iPads are in circulation for students to check out and come with Respondus installed. Academic committee can explore faculty checking out sets of iPads for usage during class time. Matthew Evins (response): TLED can facilitate this but only at these select campuses on a case-by-case basis. Rachel Barrera: question about notifying faculty about checking out iPads. Erasmus Addae (response): this can be worked on to be added in communication notifications to faculty.

QM course peer review process built as a follow-up to OKRA trainings. 2 tracks: #1: internal review process conducted by DE instructional design team, mirrors the national QM review process in a 3-year cycle. #2 official QM national review process in a 5-year cycle. Request for faculty to serve as QM peer reviewers in either track. Compensation stipends for QM committee review chairs. Kathleen Nakasone: question regarding QM certification process for 100% synchronous online (DLS) courses. Erasmus Addae (response): QM certification does not apply to DLS courses but can be applied to principle components in Blackboard, hybrid courses are applicable for QM certification. Herb Coleman: question about requirement for all DE courses to be QM certified (confirmed by Larry Stephens). Angelo Caverte (response): course review not necessary for DLS courses to become QM certified. Rachel Barrera: question regarding who is in charge of QM process, timeline. Larry Stephens (response): direction comes from the provost. Jack O’Grady: question Kristina Elizondo: question about timeline for QM certification for hybrid courses. Erasmus Addae (response): deadline is Fall 2022 semester but faculty will not be removed from the course if they cannot meet it. QM certification is optional for synchronous courses. Elizabeth Hundley: question about HYC/HYD requirements. Erasmus Addae (response): QM certification required for HYD, not HYC. Wajma Nasher: question about longevity of QM certification. Erasmus Addae (response): QM certification is part of faculty continuous improvement, recertification is required every 3 or 5 years depending on the track the faculty member chooses to use. Export/import ability is available to and from BB Demo and production to make the recertification process easier.

DE committee members are encouraged to email Larry Stephens to be added as members of these workgroups. The start of work on these groups is requested to start in late March to compose initial recommendations for the April 2022 DE committee meeting and the May 2022 full time faculty senate meeting. Workgroup: DE Faculty Handbook Updates. Composed of Larry Stephens (team lead), April Whalen, Amy Setter, Erasmus Addae, Jack O’Grady, Sarah Strong. Workgroup: Recommendations for Best Practices in DE Courses. Composed of Donna Moore (team lead), Kathleen Nakasone, Tamy Chapman, Jeannette McGowan, April Whalen, Ashley Carr, Kathleen Park, Herb Coleman, Theresa Mooney, Liz Hundley, Kristina Elizondo. Workgroup: QM Course Data. Composed of Erasmus Addae (team lead), Rachel Barrera, Sarah Strong, Wajma Nasher, April Whalen, Larry Stephens.

Issue #1: Should we have a formalized designation, certificate, training, for DE faculty? Sarah Strong: question of enforcement of who can and should teach DE courses. Faculty trainings (DLIS, QM, etc.) serve as processes that help dictate who can teach DE courses. Erasmus Addae: enforcement should be focused on existing processes and then build out from there to ensure compliance. Jack O’Grady: question of rewards for meeting compliance instead of punishing noncompliance. Rachel Barrera: new faculty onboarding uses QM and compensation is provided. Erasmus Addae: compensation rates can be adjusted in consultation with full time and adjunct faculty. Issue #2: What recommendation would you make regarding the current 60/40 requirement regarding faculty workload for DE courses? The rule states that no more than 60% of a faculty member's instruction in a particular semester can be conducted online. This rule was established by the coordinating board but is subject to the institution’s discretion on how to interpret or use it. 60/40 rule was suspended for the duration of the COVID19 pandemic but indications have been made by the administration to reinstate enforcement. Allan Purcell: history department faculty are equally split about going back to the classroom and adhering to the 60/40 rule. Larry Stephens: there is a significant challenge to meeting administration desire for larger online programs and hire faculty to meet the need with respect to the 60/40 rule. Elizabeth Hundley: departments and their chairs should determine on their own which faculty are assigned to what courses using which modes. Erasmus Addae: removing or editing the 60/40 rule should be done in cooperation with shared governance, ASAC, faculty senate; the institution is mindful of courses that do not lend themselves to 100% online course delivery. Elizabeth Hundley: there are administrative concerns about course availability and student desires for more online courses.