COURSE DEVELOPMENT - Carleton University · 2016-08-22 · Call for Proposals 2016: New Course Development 3 1. BACKGROUND Online Course Development to Target Curricular Bottlenecks

7 July 2016

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

2016 – 2018

COURSE DEVELOPMENT

Please review the attached document and submit your proposal via email by the closing deadline of 5pm EDT on 30 September 2016 (local Toronto time).

Proposals will not be considered unless:

Received by the date and time specified above.

Received in pdf format, via email to [email protected]. Submission by any other form such as facsimile or paper copy mail is not acceptable.

Key Dates for Call for Proposals Process:

7 July 2016 Distribution of Call for Proposals

30 September 2016,

5:00pm (local Toronto time)

Closing Date & Time for Submissions

All submissions must be made to [email protected]

Submissions that are received after the closing time will not be considered for further evaluation.

No later than

23 December 2016

Member institutions to be notified of successful projects

eCampusOntario will not be held responsible for documents that are not submitted in accordance with the above instructions.

NOTE: The funding associated with this Call for Proposals is conditional pending approval from the Ministry for Advanced Education and Skills Development.

mailto:[email protected]


Call for Proposals 2016: New Course Development

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ 2

1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 3

2. SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1. Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2. Funding ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Anticipated Timeline ......................................................................................................... 4

3. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS ................................................ 5 3.1. Evaluator Selection and Evaluation Process .................................................................... 5 3.2. Selection Criteria .............................................................................................................. 6

4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 6 4.1. General Overview ............................................................................................................ 6 4.2. Proposal Documentation and Delivery.............................................................................. 6 4.3. Proposal Content ............................................................................................................. 7

APPENDIX A – COVER PAGE AND ATTESTATION ............................................................... 9

APPENDIX B – RUBRIC for evaluation of submissions: New Course Development ..........10

APPENDIX C – ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS ..............................................................................23


3

1. BACKGROUND Online Course Development to Target Curricular Bottlenecks The past three years of government support for online learning have seen a focus on supporting development of individual courses through the Shared Online Course Fund. Since 2013-14, this fund has contributed more than 430 courses and 85 modules to the over 14,000 online courses in the eCampusOntario portal. As eCampusOntario shifts the focus towards the development of fully online programs in new or emerging areas of demand and open content initiatives, there remains a need to continue to support institutions in the development of online courses that address challenging curricular bottlenecks in the system. This represents a specific niche area of course development that will focus on high impact, high demand courses which may also be associated with significant repeat rates among students. The development of these courses in an online format will provide students with greater flexibility to prevent delays in completing their program of study. This targeted funding will support approximately 10 course projects that will have an overall positive impact on the system by increasing retention rates and supporting student achievement. This Course Development Call for Proposals is one of three Calls being distributed to member institutions in July 2016. The other two calls, distributed separately, are for proposals in New Program Development and Open Content Initiatives.

2. SCOPE OF WORK

2.1. Project Description

Overview

The Online Course Development project seeks to fund proposals that address the following

goals:

To identify the most challenging curricular “bottleneck” courses (those with high demand and possibly high repeat rates) to be redesigned for fully online delivery with a focus on student retention and success

To increase flexibility for students through online delivery, ideally with flexible offerings, allowing learners to optimize their course schedule and prevent delays in program progression.

Definitions

High demand: common courses used in multiple programs of study with minimum enrolment of 100 per term or 150 per year

Bottleneck courses: high demand courses with significant repeat rates (intent for these projects is high impact); presents scheduling challenges for student in completing program requirements

Fully Online: students should be able to complete requirements of the course while staying within their local community. There may be a face-to-face invigilated exam or


4

other in-person assessment or experiential learning opportunity so long as it can be accomplished without the student needing to travel great distances.

Course: a unit of instruction that includes (but is not limited to) a defined set of intended

learning outcomes, content, activities and assessments; for the purposes of this Call for

Proposals, course ‘size’ is assumed to be one term, approximately 30-45 hours of

instruction

Eligible projects

Fully online courses to address high demand and potentially high repeat rates, with consideration given to enhanced scheduling flexibility via more frequent offerings or compressed/accelerated delivery formats.

Francophone institutions are encouraged to apply (translation expenses are also a permissible component of eligible projects) Note: Only Ontario’s publicly-assisted colleges and universities are eligible to apply for

funding. Please see Appendix C for a complete list of eligible institutions.

2.2. Funding

Maximum budget per course development project: $50,000

Maximum overall project budget for Online Course Development: $464,950

eCampusOntario will fund approximately 10 course projects; including at least one francophone course project

2.3. Anticipated Timeline Each course development project must be funded from the 2016-17 fiscal year. Project work must be completed by September 2017. Institutions will be expected to meet deliverables and will receive funding in two installments as follows:

1. Signed Agreement 2. Reporting Period 1

FISCAL

2016-17 (June 2016 –March 2017)

Reporting Period 2 (Final)

Signed Agreement First Payment to institution (70% of total

budget as outlined in proposal)

Reporting Period 1 (Interim) Second Payment to institution (30% of total

budget as outlined in proposal)

FISCAL 2017-18

(April 2017 –March 2018)

Fiscal Year Reporting and Payment


5

The following provides an estimate of the project timeline and may be subject to change depending on number of submissions received and agreements with institutions.

Anticipated Timing Single Year Projects

7 July 2016 eCampusOntario distributes Call for Proposals to all publicly-assisted Ontario colleges and universities

July – September 2016

Member institutions develop proposals according to the criteria and requirements outlined eCampusOntario compiles slate of evaluators (from Ontario colleges & universities; online learning experts as well as broad range of discipline expertise)

30 September 2016 Proposals submitted; catalogued by eCampusOntario; evaluation process begins

October 2016 Proposals are evaluated according to rubric provided

November – December 2016

eCampusOntario records and sorts all scores received, identifies projects to maximum available funding to present to Board for approval eCampusOntario notifies member institutions of successful projects; agreements between eCampusOntario and institutions developed and signed

January 2017 First Payment: Percentage of funding disbursed upon receipt of signed agreement

March 31, 2016 Reporting Period 1 (Interim Report)

April 2017 Second Payment: Percentage of funding disbursed if interim report received

30 September 2017 Reporting Period 2 (Final Report)

3. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS

3.1. Evaluator Selection and Evaluation Process

Once eCampusOntario has received proposal submissions from institutions, the following steps

will be taken:

1. eCampusOntario will enter receipt of all proposals and check for completeness (all

mandatory submission requirements have been met), and duplication of funding.

Note: In support of the Ministry’s expectation for non-duplication in funded projects,

eCampusOntario will not award funding for a course that overlaps significantly with a course

funded in previous years of the Shared Online Course Fund (2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-

2016), nor one that has received funding from ONCAT during the same timeframe.

2. Proposals will be sent to evaluators for scoring against the evaluation rubric (see Appendix

B)

a. A minimum of two evaluators will be assigned to each proposal.


6

b. For any proposal that involves collaboration across both the college and university

sectors, one evaluator will be from the college sector, and one evaluator will be from

the university sector.

c. Where possible, one evaluator will have discipline knowledge in broad alignment with

the proposal (for example, a social work proposal will be reviewed by an evaluator

from the Social Sciences).

d. Where possible, one evaluator will have expertise in online learning.

3.2. Selection Criteria

Once evaluators have scored proposals using the criteria outlined in the evaluation rubric (see Appendix B), the following weighting will be applied:

Criteria Weight

Impact 40%

Quality 45%

Budget 15%

If proposals for Course Development are received that would be substantively the same, only

one proposal will be funded—the one receiving the higher score (assuming it meets the criteria

of the call).

4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.1. General Overview

Proposals must address all mandatory content requirements, as outlined below in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, must be well ordered, detailed and comprehensive. Clarity of language, adherence to suggested structuring, and adequate accessible documentation is essential to evaluators’ ability to conduct a thorough evaluation. eCampusOntario is interested in proposals that demonstrate broad value and impact for the Ontario post-secondary sector.

4.2. Proposal Documentation and Delivery

The documentation for each Proposal:

a. Must be submitted via email to [email protected] (submission by any other form such as facsimile or paper copy mail will not be accepted).

b. Proposal must be in PDF format

c. Mandatory Components:

i. Appendix A (Cover Page and Attestation) completed and signed by a representative at the Associate Vice-President Academic level or above

ii. Main Proposal Document as described in Section 4.3 below titled Proposal Content



7

4.3. Proposal Content

The proposal should contain the following items and have the same order and numbering

scheme as set out below (see Evaluation Rubric, Appendix B, for guidance and further detail):

1. Proposal should make clear the nature of the project, including

a. Title and description of course

b. Size and scope of project: provide a description of the length of the course being

developed (e.g., 12-week, or 8-month, or 36 credit hours, etc.)

c. The learning level of the course (e.g., introductory/intermediate/advanced; or 1st

year, 2nd year, etc.)

2. Describe rationale and expected impact for development of the online course, such as:

a. evidence for the anticipated demand

b. expected impact for student retention and success (especially if addressing high

repeat rates)

c. flexibility for scheduling (planned offerings such as frequency, compressed schedule,

etc.; how online delivery plans will address ‘bottleneck’ challenges for students; how

delivery will accommodate students regardless of geographic location)

d. identification of collaborative support from other institutions (such as confirmed

OntarioLearn support/pick-up, or confirmed credit equivalence to be recognized via

ONTransfer.ca)

3. Clearly articulate roles and responsibilities of individuals who will be involved in the

project, such as an instructional designer, multimedia developer, subject matter experts,

librarian, or editor (note that individual names are not required, just roles). Include

evidence related to successful experience with online pedagogy or online teaching and

learning

4. Proposal must include plan for course design, structure, and organization, including:

a. proposed clearly defined learning outcomes or competencies

b. proposed assessment strategies

c. proposed activities and strategies for interactivity and engagement

d. description and rationale regarding any use of innovative technologies, pedagogies,

or approaches to be explored

5. Include clear strategy for meeting AODA-compliance, copyright compliance, and

ensuring usability

6. Proposals should include evidence of institutional support for quality student learning

experience, including but not limited to:

a. ongoing support for instructors

b. academic and technical supports for students learning online and at a distance

c. strategies for accommodating high demand / high enrolments

d. plan for ongoing evaluation of student satisfaction, effectiveness of pedagogical and

delivery approaches

e. plan for ongoing maintenance of content currency

7. Proposals must include a clearly articulated budget that is understandable, appropriate

to the priorities of the project, and with enough detail to provide clarity about how and

when funds will be used.


8

a. For each of the roles to be involved in the project (subject matter expert, instructional

designer, project manager, etc.), provide FTE percentage for each phase of the

project, and rate/cost

b. Provide information about any other direct and in-kind costs included in the project

c. Administrative overhead is an eligible expense, to a maximum of 2% of the total

budget; high-level breakdown of these expenses is required

d. Be clear about when project work/phases will occur; note that expenses for

components of project work that begin prior to 31 March 2017, and will be completed

by 30 September 2017 can be attributed to the 2016-17 fiscal year.

e. Be prepared to provide evidence of expenditures in the event of a Ministry audit

(e.g., records of salary expenses, etc.)


9

APPENDIX A – COVER PAGE AND ATTESTATION

To be completed, signed by an Associate Vice-President Academic (or above) and included as

first page of proposal submission. A Word version will be provided.

Project Name/Course Title

Learning Level (e.g., introductory/ intermediate/advanced; or 1st year, 2nd year, etc.)

Discipline / Subject Area

Institution Name

Lead Contact

Name: Position: Email: Phone Number:

Total Budget Request

Project Description (maximum 250 words)

Attestation for Course Development I attest that this proposal adheres to the requirements as set out in the Request for Proposal for Course Development.

This course will be offered in the 2017-2018 Academic Year (Fall 2017, Winter 2018, and/or Spring 2018)

Course offerings will adhere to all appropriate legislation, including the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Canadian Copyright Act

This proposal does not duplicate content funded in previous years of the Shared Online Course Fund (2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016)

_____________________________ Signature _____________________________ Name (please print) _____________________________ Title _____________________________ Date


10

APPENDIX B – RUBRIC for evaluation of submissions: New Course Development

Criteria Evidence/Indicators Scoring

Impact (40%)

Rationale and expected impact of online course: High demand

Course is common or in high-demand across multiple programs Proposal provides evidence of high demand, including description of enrolment over past academic year or two Course may be included as an option for general education credit

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides evidence that recent course enrolment demand across all offerings is significantly high (200+ enrolments per term, or 500+ enrolments per year); course is a requirement for multiple programs; record of demand from students in outside institution(s) is evident; and/or course is included as an option for general education credit. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides evidence that recent course enrolment demand across all offerings is relatively high (150+ enrolments per term, or 350+ enrolments per year); course is a requirement for a number of programs; demand from outside students is present, but not significant; course is included as an option for general education credit. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides evidence that recent course enrolment demand is large (100+ enrolments per term, or 150+ enrolments per year); course is a requirement for relatively few programs; demand from outside students is minimal; course is not included as an option for general education credit. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal focuses on a course where recent enrolment demand is not significant or evidence not provided; course is not widely required; evidence of demand from outside students does not exist; is not included as an option for general education credit.


11

Rationale and expected impact of online course: Student retention and success

Proposal provides evidence of current student repeat rates Proposal articulates how online delivery plans aim to improve student success and retention

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides strong evidence for student challenges in course; clear description of how intended strategies and delivery format will support improved student success and address any potential retention issues. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides description of student challenges in course and addresses how the online course will support improved student success and retention. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal discusses some challenges with the course and provides a passable explanation of how the online course will help to improve student success and retention. Incomplete (0-1 pt): Little or no information is provided regarding student success and retention challenges and solutions. Existing course may not have high repeat challenges.


12

Rationale and expected impact of online course: Flexibility for student scheduling

Proposal describes current challenges, if any, for students regarding meeting program needs with this particular course (may describe ‘bottleneck’ in curriculum scheduling) Proposal describes how planned scheduling/offerings of online course will enhance student flexibility (may include more frequent offerings, compressed or accelerated offerings) Proposal describes fully online delivery ensuring no geographical barriers for students

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides strong evidence to suggest that course is a curricular bottleneck in the system or challenges that exist for students to optimally schedule course to meet their program requirements; proposal clearly articulates argument for how online delivery will better serve the students taking this course and it is clear that and planned offering approach will address identified challenges; all course requirements can be met from where the student lives (there may be a face-to-face invigilated exam or other in-person assessment or experiential learning opportunity so long as it can be accomplished without the student needing to travel great distances). Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides some evidence that course is a curricular bottleneck in the system or a scheduling challenge for students; proposal provides some rationale for how online delivery and planned offering approach will better serve the students taking this course. Delivery is fully online, not requiring the student to travel great distances to complete any course requirements. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides minimal evidence that course is a curricular bottleneck or scheduling challenge for students; proposal provides minimal rationale or description for how online delivery or offering approach will better serve the students taking this course. Delivery is fully online, not requiring the student to travel great distances to complete any course requirements. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal provides little or no evidence to suggest that course is a curricular bottleneck or scheduling challenge; little or no explanation of planned online offerings will benefit students. Delivery involves some requirement for the student to be on campus (is not fully online).


13

Rationale and expected impact of online course: Identification of collaborative support from other institutions

Confirmed intent to offer course through OntarioLearn Confirmed credit transfer intent from other institutions, to be recognized in ONTransfer.ca

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Detailed, credible evidence of support from other institutions; specific course equivalency agreements, or clear indication of intent to deliver course through OntarioLearn are provided. Strategies to ensure or improve the likelihood of credit recognition are clearly articulated (such as involvement of other institutions in vetting learning outcomes during design). Excellent (6-8 pts): Credible evidence of support from other institutions; a plan is articulated and notes of intent are provided regarding credit recognition. Plans to encourage or ensure likelihood of credit recognition are articulated. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Minimal or vague evidence of support from other institutions; some early explorations of agreements are articulated or underway. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Blank field or indication of no known equivalence or recognition, nor indication of intent to offer through OntarioLearn.

Quality (45%)

Roles and responsibilities of partners and / or team members are clearly outlined

Proposal must articulate roles, responsibilities, and online learning experience of individuals who will be involved in the course development, such as:

subject matter experts

instructional designer

multimedia developer

librarian

editor or quality assurance reviewer

NOTE: individual names are not required, just roles.

Exceptional (9-10pts): Proposal includes a clear and detailed breakdown of roles and responsibilities of each project team member, along with previous experience with online learning projects and/or online pedagogy; project team proposed is diverse and includes 4 or 5 types of roles listed. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal includes a clear breakdown of the roles and responsibilities of each partner and/or individual, and includes some specific details; project team proposed is fairly diverse and includes at least instructional design expertise, and some online learning experience. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal includes a vague breakdown of the roles and responsibilities of each partner and/or individual, with minimal detail; project team proposed is not diverse and includes only 1 or 2 types of the roles listed and minimal online learning experience. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Roles and responsibilities are not outlined; little or no online learning experience articulated. Project team is homogenous.


14

Course design, structure, organization: Learning outcomes or Competencies; and Assessment Strategies

Proposed intended learning outcomes or competencies are

clearly written

measurable

appropriate to the course level

Prerequisite knowledge is clear Assessment strategies are proposed and are linked to learning outcomes

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposed intended learning outcomes or competencies are written in clear, measurable terms and are appropriate to the course level. Prerequisite knowledge is clearly articulated. Assessment strategies are proposed and clearly linked to intended learning outcomes. Clear plan is in place to review, revise, and flesh out detail for both learning outcomes or competencies and assessment strategies through design phase of project. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposed intended learning outcomes or competencies are at an appropriate level, but not all are written as measurable outcomes. Prerequisite courses are listed. Proposed assessment strategies included may not be clearly linked to learning outcomes. Plan is suggested for addressing both learning outcomes or competencies and assessment strategies during project design phase, but is not detailed. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Intended learning outcomes or competencies are proposed but are not clearly written as measurable and may not be appropriate to course level; minimal description of assessment strategy provided with vague links to learning outcomes. No clear plan to address both intended learning outcomes/competencies or assessment strategies during project. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Little to no information is provided regarding intended learning outcomes or competencies; little description of assessment strategies, nor plan articulated to address either.


15

Course design, structure, organization: Interactivity and engagement

Proposal provides high level plan or strategies for student learning activities and engagement; learning is intended to be active Feedback strategies for assessments are described

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal addresses design strategies to ensure interactivity, student engagement, and active learning through the design and delivery of the course. A variety of learning activities are contemplated; proposal outlines intended opportunities for student-student, student-content, and student-instructor interaction. Expectations for assessment feedback to students are described. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal addresses design strategies to ensure active learning and student engagement. Learning activities and interactivity (content, students, instructor) are considered. Some information is provided regarding assessment feedback expectations. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal addresses intent to develop learning activities to ensure interactivity, student engagement, and active learning, but little information is provided. Feedback for assessments is acknowledged, but no detail provided. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Learning activities to address active learning and student engagement are not addressed as part of the design plans; few or no details are provided regarding expectations for assessment feedback.


16

Course design, structure, organization: Innovative pedagogies or technologies

Plan and rationale for considering innovative technology and/or pedagogical approaches

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides a convincing plan and pedagogical rationale for exploring the use of innovative technology and/or innovative pedagogical approach that demonstrates a deep knowledge of best practices for effective student learning. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides a plan for exploring the use of innovative technology and/or pedagogical approach that demonstrates some rationale for its use and some knowledge of best practices for effective student learning. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides a vague or incomplete plan for exploring the use of innovative technology and or pedagogical approach that demonstrates a limited rationale for support of student learning. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal provides no plan to consider the use of innovative technology or pedagogical approach.


17

AODA compliance, usability, and copyright compliance

Strategy for ensuring AODA compliance is articulated Approach to ensure adherence to copyright legislation

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides a clear plan for ensuring AODA compliance to the highest standard. Proposal includes detailed plan for user testing to ensure usability and accessibility. Proposal describes measures to ensure no contravention of third-party copyright within course content. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides a plan for ensuring AODA compliance that should result in a final product that is accessible. Proposal provides some description of planned user testing though it is not clearly outlined. Proposal assures no copyright will be contravened, but no measures are described to ensure compliance. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides commitment to AODA and copyright legislative compliance, but does not describe measures to ensure compliance. Proposal does not describe user testing. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal does not include a plan or commitment for ensuring AODA and/or copyright legislative compliance. Little to no reference is made to usability testing.


18

Institutional support for quality learning experience: Instructor supports

Proposal articulates how instructors or the instructional team will be supported through delivery of the online course (types of supports, availability of support) Student/instructor and/or teaching assistant ratios are articulated and reasonable (or alternative strategies for managing this, i.e., computer-mediated feedback for some content) Proposal describes technical supports available for instructors

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides clear detail regarding a breadth of pedagogical, technical, and other supports available when needed to the instructor or instructional team through the delivery / offering of the course. The nature of the supports and the expertise available are clearly articulated. Student/instructor/teaching assistant ratios are clear and reasonable and, if applicable, alternative strategies for managing student feedback via computer-mediated processes are described. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides clear detail regarding pedagogical and technical supports available when needed to the instructor or instructional team through the delivery / offering of the course. Student/instructor/teaching assistant ratios are clear and alternative strategies for managing student feedback via computer-mediated processes are described. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides clear detail regarding technical support available to the instructor or instructional team through the delivery / offering of the course. Student/instructor/teaching assistant ratios are clear and alternative strategies for managing student feedback via computer-mediated processes are described. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal provides little or no detail regarding supports available to instructors; supports available are minimal; student/instructor ratios are not articulated, or are not reasonable.


19

Institutional support for quality learning experience: Student supports

Proposal articulates how students will be supported by institution while learning online and at a distance Academic and technical supports and resources available (e.g., library access, learning skills, writing skills, technical assistance)

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides clear detail regarding a breadth of academic, technical, and other supports available when needed to the student. Supports include online resources as well as personal support via phone or computer. Detail is provided regarding when personal supports/responses are available and may include 24/7 technical support and close to real-time response. Excellent (6-8 pts): The majority of academic and technical supports are available online, though some may be missing for the student at a distance. Some personal support may be available, but no 24/7 technical support. Detail is provided regarding when personal supports/responses are available and are close to real-time during business hours. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Some academic and technical supports are available online. Personal support via phone or computer is available within 24 hours, during business hours. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Minimal academic and technical supports are available online, or no information is provided. Little or no information is provided regarding personal responses via phone or computer.


20

Institutional support for quality learning experience: Strategies for accommodating high demand / high enrolments

Proposal describes how student learning support is ensured, including as appropriate:

administrative systems and processes in place to support a high volume of students

training and support for instructional team specific to facilitating large online classes or other strategies to manage high demand

pedagogical and/or technology strategies that help ensure a high quality learning experience in a large online class

High demand might be addressed through other strategies such as more frequent offerings or a larger number of smaller offerings (larger instructional team), etc.

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal builds on earlier detail regarding instructor and student supports to clearly articulate those strategies aimed at, or unique to, large classes; pedagogical or technology strategies are identified to ensure a high quality learning experience in a large online class environment (minimal number of assessments are managed via computer-mediated/automated grading); and/or other strategies are clearly articulated to accommodate high demand in a manner to ensure a high quality learning experience (such as frequency offerings or sections to generate smaller class sizes, with sufficient instructor support). Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal identifies specific student and instructor support strategies aimed at managing large classes, including some computer-mediated/automated grading; and/or identifies other strategies to accommodate high demand (such as frequency offerings or sections to generate smaller class sizes, with sufficient instructor support). Acceptable (2-5 pts): Strategies to accommodate high demand are primarily focused on computer-mediated assessments (automated grading) and large class sizes. Some reference is made to training and support for instructors specific to managing large classes. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Little or no information is provided regarding strategies to address high demand and large classes.

Institutional support for quality learning experience: Evaluation plans

Proposal clearly describes approaches to be taken to ensure ongoing evaluation of student satisfaction and effectiveness of pedagogical and delivery approaches used (effectiveness of course design)

Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides clear and detailed description of ongoing evaluation plans; how learners will be enabled to give formative and summative feedback to the instructor about course design/content, and their learning experience, in a safe and appropriate manner; frequency of feedback collection is articulated. Excellent (6-8 pts): Some detail is provided regarding how learners will be enabled to give formative and summative feedback in an appropriate and safe manner; frequency of feedback collection is articulated. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Summative feedback is collected from students via an end-of-term course evaluation after each offering. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Little or no information is provided regarding ongoing evaluation plans.


21

Institutional support for quality learning experience: Maintenance plan

Proposal includes a sustainability (maintenance plan) to ensure course is reviewed and maintained and content is kept up to date, and is available for at least 5 years. Review and renewal of pedagogical approaches, learning activities, and technologies used, as appropriate, based on student feedback

Exceptional (9-10 pts): The proposal includes a clearly defined and effective maintenance plan; the review process is clearly outlined, including assessment of student feedback and content currency, effectiveness of pedagogical approaches in meeting intended learning outcomes, effectiveness of technologies used; description of how needed updates might be addressed. Excellent (6-8 pts): The proposal includes a maintenance plan; a review process is articulated with consideration given to student feedback and effectiveness of course design and technologies used for delivery. Some information provided regarding how needed updates will be identified and addressed. Acceptable (2-5 pts): High-level description of routine maintenance plan provided; the review process is briefly described with some reference to student feedback and how it will be addressed. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Little or no information is provided regarding maintenance plan or review and update processes.


22

Budget (15%)

The budget clearly outlines cost projections and priorities of the project. The financial plan stipulates a timeline of expenses and provides detail regarding in-kind contributions. The budget is reasonable to the work proposed.

The budget is easy to understand and reflects the priorities of the project For each of the roles to be involved in the project (subject matter expert, instructional designer, project manager, etc.), provide FTE percentage and rate/cost

The budget identifies any other direct and in-kind costs in sufficient detail to be clear (such as licensing and accessibility compliance costs, ongoing costs, such as hosting) The budget is clear about when project work and related expenses will occur Administrative overhead, to a maximum of 2% of the total budget, is detailed

Exceptional (9-10 pts): The budget clearly outlines cost projections and the numbers accurately reflect the priorities of the project. The budget is easy to understand and provides sufficient detail for clarity about how funds will be used. The financial plan outlines a valid timeline of expenses and provides detail regarding in-kind contributions. The budget is completely reasonable to the work proposed. Excellent (6-8 pts): The budget outlines cost projections and the numbers generally reflect the priorities of the project. The budget is clear and some level of detail is provided, but some questions remain. The financial plan provides an indication of a timeline of expenses and in-kind contributions are noted. The budget is mostly reasonable to the work proposed. Acceptable (2-5 pts): The budget provides some cost projections; the numbers are not entirely reflective of project priorities. The budget is difficult to understand and provides minimal detail. The financial plan provides minimal indication of a timeline of expenses and no in-kind contributions are noted. The budget is not entirely reasonable to the work outlined. Incomplete (0-1 pts): The budget does not outline detailed cost projections and the numbers do not reflect the priorities of the project. The budget is not clear and does not provide sufficient detail. The budget is not reasonable to the work proposed.


23

APPENDIX C – ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS Algoma University Brock University Carleton University Lakehead University Laurentian University McMaster University Nipissing University OCAD University Queen's University Ryerson University Trent University University of Guelph University of Ontario Institute of Technology University of Ottawa University of Toronto University of Waterloo University of Windsor Western University Wilfrid Laurier University York University

Algonquin College Collège Boréal Cambrian College Canadore College Centennial College Conestoga College Confederation College Durham College Fanshawe College George Brown College Georgian College Humber College La Cité collégiale Lambton College Loyalist College Mohawk College Niagara College Northern College Sault College Seneca College Sheridan College S.S. Fleming College St. Clair College St. Lawrence College

Documents

COURSE DEVELOPMENT - Carleton University · 2016-08-22 · Call for Proposals 2016: New Course Development 3 1. BACKGROUND Online Course Development to Target Curricular Bottlenecks