Upload
phungbao
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Final BOR Grant Review 1
Report to Delgado Community College on Board of Regents Enhancement Grant
Submitted by Joyce A. Langenegger, PhD, JD
For Delgado Community College, as for almost every other person or entity in
contemporary New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina and the levee breaks severed the past from the
present. For Delgado that severance took the form of a shift to online learning. A college that had
fewer than 10 per cent of students enrolled in online classes pre-Katrina, with a limited number of
faculty prepared to deliver instruction in that medium, suddenly could only deliver classes online. In
the months immediately following Katrina, displaced faculty in remote locations taught displaced
students in equally far-flung sites. This heroic action is recognized as crucial to the survival of the
institution that is Delgado Community College.
Some faculty members whose classes were already online felt constrained by a system that
wouldn’t allow them do what they were prepared to do. Others moved tentatively ahead in
developing an online presence as they taught their courses. The result in one instructor’s view was
that he had created “an independent study for which [he] served as the online secretary.” Faculty,
staff, and administrators recognized a need for more faculty training in the development and
delivery of online classes.
Background. In the post-Katrina world of Delgado approximately 25% of students enroll in
online classes, a percentage that has remained constant over the past few semesters. Because of
increased enrollment, however, the actual number of students taking online classes has escalated.
This increased enrollment in online courses, coupled with a desire to afford students the highest
quality learning experience possible, resulted in several changes within the institution.
Through its revised Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), required by Delgado’s accrediting
body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), and a Board of Regents Grant
(BOR Grant), faculty, staff, and administrators at Delgado sought to improve the student learning
Final BOR Grant Review 2
experience in online courses. One approach to meeting this goal was through enhanced and targeted
training for faculty who teach online. A goal of the institution’s QEP was to create a highly trained
corps of online instructors, who could then train other faculty members. A goal of the BOR Grant
was to provide funding for the development and implementation of online and face-to-face courses
to meet some of these training needs, and thus institutionalize quality training for both online and
face-to-face instructors.
Over the five-year period of the QEP, a total of 40 selected faculty members are expected to
participate in a graduate-level certification program, Teaching in the Virtual Classroom (TVC)
developed and taught through Fielding Graduate University. Participants in the TVC-certification
program are also expected to (1) provide assistance to other faculty members in developing their
online instructional skills and (2) obtain Quality Matters certification for at least one online course.
Quality Matters, administered by the University of Maryland, is a national certification program
requiring peer review and approval of online courses. To date, twenty-nine Delgado faculty
members have obtained TVC certification and twenty-seven courses have achieved QM
certification or have been submitted for certification. Participants report the TVC training and the
QM-certification process enhanced the quality of their instruction both in their online courses and in
their face-to-face classrooms. Additionally, administrators report higher student satisfaction levels
in QM-certified courses and fewer student complaints.
BOR Grant. The Board of Regents Grant to develop a comprehensive training program for
online instructors had three components:
Developing an in-house competency-based curriculum to train online and face-to-face
instructors (Component 1);
Creating courses in-house for the curriculum (Component 2); and
Implementing the courses for online teaching (Component 3).
Final BOR Grant Review 3
The faculty development program for online instructors developed by Valencia College in
Florida served as the model for Component 1. Additionally, the competency-based model for
student learning and related workshops that were developed as a part of a U. S. Department of
Education Title III grant (Title III Grant) provided a framework for the faculty development
curriculum contemplated by Component 1.
Component 2 focused on the development of courses for delivery to faculty both in online
and face-to-face formats. A total of three courses were to be developed (BOR Courses). The content
areas that underlay the Valencia courses were to be incorporated into the BOR Courses. Course
developers were to be TVC-certified faculty. This approach was to constitute the first step in the
train-the-trainer model conceived both by the QEP and the BOR Grant.
Implementation through piloting the newly designed courses was the goal of Component 3.
The courses were to be made available to faculty who taught online or in face-to-face formats. A
potential post-BOR Grant outcome was identified as the development of “Digital Professor” and
“Master Teacher” certifications again patterned on an existing program at Valencia. The
certification program would include, but not be limited to, the courses developed through the BOR
Grant.
Methodology. The findings in this report are based upon a number of resources. They
include both interview and document sources. From June 9-10, 2011, I conducted face-to-face
interviews with staff, faculty, and administrators at Delgado’s City Park campus (n=17).
Additionally, I conducted a telephone interview (n=1) on June 20, 2011. Participants were asked to
identify aspects of the BOR Grant and faculty development that had succeeded and some of the
challenges they saw with either program. They were also asked to provide their historical
perspective of faculty development at Delgado. Some follow-up e-mail correspondence followed
the on-site interviews. I reviewed all online courses developed as a part of the BOR Grant,
Final BOR Grant Review 4
including both assignments and discussion boards. Among the documents I reviewed were the BOR
Grant, QEP assessment reports, Title III Final Report, assorted documents related to curriculum
review and mapping, QM and Sloan Consortium web sites, working papers on faculty development
for distance learning, and Delgado Policies and Procedures.
The analysis of data followed a hermeneutic approach. Hermeneutics is a method of analysis
that seeks to achieve an understanding of what people and documents are saying. Interview
transcripts and documents were reviewed to interpret meaning and through comparison identify
patterns that appeared in descriptions of programs, successes, and challenges.
Findings. Delgado appears to have satisfied the key elements of the BOR Grant. An
advantage Delgado enjoys is support from administrators, faculty, and staff for professional
development and this program in particular. In their interviews a number of individuals cited
initiatives in other areas of the college as complementary to the program developed with BOR Grant
funds. No one, including Delgado’s Interim Chancellor, views the BOR Grant and its products as
an end point, rather they are described as a transitional step moving Delgado to the next level in
providing high-quality, cost-efficient, and learning-effective instruction to Delgado students.
Component 1 (Curriculum Design) The BOR Grant, as originally written, contemplated a
curriculum designed to incorporate seven “streams” that are present in the Valencia faculty
development curriculum (Valencia Model). Delgado, however, operates with a four-part
competency-domain model (Delgado Model). The Working Papers for the BOR Grant include a
mapping of faculty development courses, including the BOR Courses. This curriculum mapping ties
to the Delgado Model. Coherency exists between the Valencia Model and the Delgado model. Table
1 represents a crosswalk of the elements of the Valencia Model to illustrate where they reside in the
Delgado Model.
Final BOR Grant Review 5
Table 1. CrosswalkValencia Model-Streams Delgado Model-Competency DomainsLearning technology/Alternate delivery Technical competencyTheory-based practice/Course design Application of learning theory and
instructional designAssessmentActive and collaborative learningStudent success Communication and behavioral skillsInclusion and diversityApplied scholarship of teaching and learning Professional skills
The Delgado staff has moved beyond curriculum mapping and course design to consider key
courses and a developmental process for faculty development. The proposal provides a three-year
plan for a faculty member’s professional development program, culminating in achieving in-house
certification as a Digital Professor/Instructor (for online instruction) or Master Teacher (for face-to-
face instruction). It also includes a process map that offers a visual representation of how
individuals move through the faculty development program to achieve the same level of proficiency
through in-house delivered courses as TVC-trained faculty have acquired through more expensive
external training. At least one faculty member expressed concern that although training should be
designed as a “cohesive program,” it should not be a “master plan.”
Component 2 (Course Design) The BOR Grant provided for the development of three
courses by TVC-certified faculty. To date, five courses have been designed. Four of these courses
were designed by TVC-certified faculty. The fifth course was prepared by a recognized in-house
expert on learning theory, who is also a QM-certified course reviewer. These courses include
Online Course Design with QM (QMM)
Critical Thinking in the Classroom (CT)
Learning-Centered Theory and Practice (LCTP)
Assessment for Learning (ASSMT)
Collaboration and Inclusion (CI)
Final BOR Grant Review 6
Each of these courses has been mapped to the Delgado Model competency domains. A
review of the curriculum map reflects that all elements of the Valencia Model streams are
embedded in one or more of the BOR Courses. Table 2 illustrates the linkage among the Valencia
Model streams, the Delgado Model competency domains, and the BOR Courses.
Table 2. LinkagesValencia Model Streams Delgado Model Competency
DomainsBOR Courses
Learning technology/Alternate delivery
Technical competency QMMCI
Theory-based practice/Course design
Application of learning theory and instructional design
QMMCTLCTP
Assessment ASSMTActive and collaborative learning CIStudent success Communication and behavioral
skillsQMMCTLCTPASSMT
Inclusion and diversity CIApplied scholarship of teaching and learning
Professional skills QMMCTLCTPASSMTCI
One issue that became apparent from a review of the development of the BOR Courses was
the difference between the low estimate of course-development time included in the BOR Grant (45
hours) and the actual time required to develop a course. Of the three course designers interviewed,
all three reported their development time exceeded 45 hours. Two designers believed future courses
would require less time to develop. One of these interviewees noted that he spent approximately a
year learning the content for his course (in an area he elected to explore), approximately 45 hours
designing the original course, and a substantial amount of time that he did not quantify redesigning
the course once he began teaching it. The other course designer noted that although she had
Final BOR Grant Review 7
designed a number of online courses within her teaching discipline, those courses were structured
by the accompanying textbook. Her faculty development course allowed for much greater design
freedom and required her to identify appropriate resources to support the course’s learning goals.
She reported spending well in excess of 45 hours to design the course, but she noted that she
believed her next course could be designed much more quickly. One issue she noted was the
solitary aspect of course design and the lack of having someone “to bounce ideas off of,” while also
observing that she believed those individuals would have been available to her had she asked. The
third course designer stated her course took four months to design and did not suggest that any
subsequent course would take less time to design.
Active participants in the course development structure contemplated by the BOR Grant and
their respective roles included
The Director of the Office of Faculty and Staff Development to identify learning outcomes,
instructional design, and assessment from a pedagogical perspective;
The Dean of Distance Learning and Information Technology to identify learning outcomes,
instructional design, and assessment from a pedagogical perspective and to contract with
course designers;
The Learning Outcomes Specialist to confirm coherence between learning outcomes and
desired competencies and to confirm alignment among outcomes, assessments, and
activities;
The Committee on Institutional Effectiveness to confirm the program was coherent and
aligned;
The QEP Coordinator to consult on curriculum design;
The Director of Institutional Research to assist in developing assessment tools;
Final BOR Grant Review 8
The Director of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Technology to assist with
instructional design;
The TVC-certified faculty to provide feedback on courses and develop courses; and
The Director of Public Relations to market the program to faculty.
Several staff changes occurred during the term of the BOR Grant which may have altered
the course-development process. These changes included
The resignation of the Director of the Office of Faculty and Staff Development;
The transfer of the QEP Coordinator responsibilities to the Dean for Distance Learning and
Instructional Technology and to a faculty member;
The restructuring of the responsibilities of the Learning Outcomes Specialist after Title III
ended;
The merger of functions of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness into other offices; and
The hiring of an instructional designer.
As a result of these changes, the process for course design was also altered. TVC-certified
course developers identified gaps in existing curriculum for online training. They then developed
courses to fill those gaps. The individual who had been the Learning Outcomes Specialist and the
Project Director worked with these individuals to develop standard course syllabi that would map to
the Delgado Model competency domains. At least one faculty developer reported utilizing the
Instructional Designer to assist with course development. Each developer piloted or plans to pilot
the course he or she designed. One faculty member left the college prior to the piloting of her
course. The courses were marketed by sending e-mails announcing their availability to all Delgado
faculty members.
Interviewed faculty members who developed BOR Courses reported they volunteered to
create their courses because of an interest in the topic or a sense that this service was one they
Final BOR Grant Review 9
should provide the college after its investment in their TVC certification. The staff member who
prepared a course was the recognized in-house expert on her topic. All individuals interviewed
stated they would be willing to design additional courses for this program. It should be noted that
faculty were compensated for their work on this project. The staff member was not.
Component 3 (Implementation) Of the five developed courses, three have been piloted with
faculty. Distance Learning and Instructional Technology staff indicated the other two will be piloted
during the 2011 fall semester. The three courses that have been piloted are
Online Course Design with QM;
Critical Thinking in the Classroom; and
Learning-Centered Theory and Practice.
Two instructors expressed concern regarding course attrition. Reported numbers of those
expressing an interest in a particular course were higher than actual participants. Additionally, the
limited use of discussion boards by course participants in these two courses disappointed the
instructors. This factor was critical because the only form of engagement for the courses was
through the discussion boards.
The third course, “Online Course Design with QM,” was designed by a faculty member no
longer with the college. Although the original course design contemplated extensive use of
discussion boards, the facilitator only utilized the discussion boards for the first two course sessions.
She then provided one-on-one online assistance to participants who were attempting to achieve QM
certification for their courses. Table 3 provides a comparison of attrition levels for the three courses.
Table 3. Course AttritionSignificant Stages Online Course
Design with QMCritical Thinking in the Classroom
Learning-Centered Theory and Practice
Reported number of individuals expressing interest
Unknown 20 12
Number of students posting in first unit requiring posts
8 17 5
Final BOR Grant Review 10
Number of students posting in last unit requiring posts
7 4 2
Reported completers of all course requirements
7 (with 1 still in process)
4 3
It is important to note that each offered course was redesigned to some level after its initial
placement online. As noted above, the original designer of the “Online Course Design with QM”
left the college. Based on postings on the Discussion Board page, she intended to make full use of
the Discussion Board. She posted a number of questions for each week of the course. The instructor
who taught the course shifted to a mentoring format and posted key concepts for consideration on
the Announcements page. Additionally, the course was originally designed as a 12-week course, but
the Course Syllabus describes it as a 7-week course. The “Critical Thinking” course was originally
designed as an 8-week course to begin at the first of March and conclude by May 9th. Although the
course syllabus suggests that the course was open to faculty and staff, the course designer stated he
had not anticipated any staff members would register for the course, so he assumed a certain level
of knowledge about pedagogy and other topics. When a staff member enrolled, he modified the
course to meet her needs as well as those of faculty members. The course itself was reduced to three
units with the final participant posting occurring on May 30th. The “Learning-Centered Theory”
course was originally designed as a five-module, five-month course that began in November 2010
and was to be completed by March 2011. The final posting was made on May 15th. Other than
extending the time for participation, no other adjustments appear to have been made to course
structure or content.
Neither the “Assessment” course nor the “Collaboration and Inclusion” course has been
taught, although they have been designed. It is my understanding they will be piloted during the
2011fall semester.
Final BOR Grant Review 11
The interviews and document review reflect that Delgado faculty and staff designed,
developed, and implemented courses for online faculty as a result of the funds provided through the
BOR Grant. Faculty and staff gained valuable information during the development and
implementation of these courses. Administrators report that officials from other Louisiana
community colleges have expressed interest in having their faculties participate in these courses
once the Digital Professor/Instructor program has been fully developed. Table 4 reflects the current
status of the BOR Grant together with concerns raised in interviews or course assessments.
Final BOR Grant Review 12
Table 4. Current Status of BOR Grant GoalsGrant Goal Current Status Product ConcernsDesign competency-based curriculum for online teaching.
All curriculum has been mapped to link competencies and domains to specific courses.
Faculty Development Program and Curriculum Mapping Competency Domains, Indicators, and Courses
Sample Faculty Development Curriculum and Continual Improvement for Online Course Delivery
The level of prescriptiveness of the program curriculum.
Create courses for curriculum. Five courses have been created. Four by TVC-certified faculty members and one by a content expert.
Online Course Design with QM
Critical Thinking in the Classroom
Learning-Centered Theory and Practice
Assessment for LearningCollaboration and Inclusion
The length of time required to design courses.The need to modify courses during the pilot.
Implementation of competency-based curriculum for online teaching.
Three of the courses have been fully piloted.Initial enrollment was 30.Completers totaled 13 (with 1 still in process).Both faculty and staff members took at least one of the courses.
Course CompletersOnline Course Design with
QM-7 completers who have submitted courses to QM (2 certified/5 revision) and 1 completing course for QM review
Critical Thinking in the Classroom-3 completers
Learning-Centered Theory and Practice-3 completers
Recruitment attempts netted 40 people who expressed interest in taking the courses, but only 30 people participated at any point.Some individuals indicated they would take the course in a different semester when their workloads were lower.Some participants noted the amount of time required to complete the course was a problem.Course participants did not participate on Discussion Boards to the extent the instructor had hoped.Retention and completion numbers reflect a high drop-out rate.
Final BOR Grant Review 13
Recommendations. The institutionalization and expansion of the curriculum initiated
under the BOR Grant appears to have strong support throughout Delgado. Planning and research
are underway with regard to the structure and implementation of a program to certify online
instructors (Digital Professor/Instructor Curriculum) and another to certify face-to-face
instructors (Master Teacher Curriculum). The Digital Professor/Instructor Curriculum and the
Master Teacher Curriculum are jointly referred to as the Certification Curriculum. The ongoing
development of the Certification Curriculum reflects Delgado’s commitment to move forward
with this program. Strong support, human resources, and planning does not equate to
development and implementation without challenges.
Strengths Administrators at all levels, faculty members, and professional staff with
whom I met identified the need for faculty development in the areas addressed by the BOR
Courses as well as other courses currently available or planned by the Office of Faculty and Staff
Development. Faculty development directors report that administrator support is the most
essential element to assure success for faculty development programs (Pchenitchnaia, 2007).
Within each category of interviewees, people recognized a positive difference in quality of
instruction and student outcomes from TVC-certified faculty members. The expansion of the
Digital Professor/Instructor Curriculum will allow additional instructors to learn similar content
to that delivered by Fielding Graduate University. The cost of the in-house program will be much
lower than the externally delivered courses. TVC-certified faculty and midlevel administrators
consistently reported that TVC training improved an instructor’s teaching performance and
student learning outcomes both online and in face-to-face classes. The development of the
Master Teacher Curriculum will extend the impact of this training even further.
Final BOR Grant Review 14
The initial courses that were designed under the BOR Grant provide a strong foundation
for the development of the Certification Curriculum. Each provides an in-depth analysis of its
topic area. As demonstrated by the modifications made in courses from their initial posting and
based on interviewee responses, the course developers remain open to adapting their courses to
best meet the needs of their participants. At least two of the courses provide an opportunity for
one-on-one coaching from the instructor: “Online Course Design with QM” and “Learning-
Centered Theory and Practice.” The “Critical Thinking in the Classroom” course includes a
capstone experience of designing a critical thinking activity for classroom use. This project as
well could provide one-on-one coaching opportunities. The “Assessment for Learning” course
could easily add a mentoring element by having instructor/students design and implement an
assessment. Due to my limited review of the “Collaboration and Inclusion” course, I am unable
to comment on the existence of coaching in this course.
As an extension of the QEP and Title III initiatives, the BOR Grant and the Certification
Curriculum are solidly grounded in existing programs that are viewed positively by those I
interviewed. The further development of the Certification Curriculum fits within Delgado’s
Strategic Goals for 2011-2016, most specifically Goal 1: Increase Opportunities for Student
Access and Success, E. Develop non-traditional teaching models. As an extension of the QEP
and an embodiment of the institution’s Strategic Goals, the Certification Curriculum is well
positioned to obtain financial resources for continued growth and development.
The interest in this program expressed by administrators at other colleges suggests the
possibility that program costs could be shared with other public colleges and universities within
Louisiana and packaged and sold to institutions in other states. A certification program that
Final BOR Grant Review 15
extends beyond Delgado would enhance the prestige and portability of this credential. This
potential could support making the certification meaningful and beneficial to participants.
Having someone coordinate the Certification Curriculum project on a full-time basis is
critical to its continued success. The utilization of a lateral move to fill the position of Director of
Faculty and Staff Development was a significant action. The individual who fills this role is
well-respected by faculty members and other colleagues throughout the institution. She enjoys
strong support for her efforts from her direct supervisor and other administrators. College-wide
support, financial and human resources, the potential for the expansion of the program beyond
Delgado, and project leadership are all strengths of the program.
Challenges Of greatest concern with regard to the implementation of the BOR Courses,
and likely issues for the implementation of the Certification Curriculum, are the dual problems of
low enrollment and high attrition. These issues are not subject to easy resolution. Just as a
leader with no followers is no longer a leader, a program with no participants is no longer a
program.
The developers of the two courses that had the highest attrition rates expressed concern
about the low levels of participation in the discussion boards even by those who remained in the
courses. Both noted that persons expressing an interest in the course, as well as those who did
not complete the course, identified time restrictions as an issue. Both noted they would be
rethinking and redesigning their courses to account for the low levels of participation on the
discussion boards.
Lessons for modifications to these courses may also be found in the design and delivery
of the “Online Course Design with QM.” This course appears to have been altered to follow a
coaching/mentoring model with high levels of one-on-one instructor-student consultations. The
Final BOR Grant Review 16
“Learning-Centered Theory and Practice” course utilized this same framework for the final
project. Success in the “Online Course Design with QM” course offered an identifiable product
(a QM-certified course) that was meaningful to the participants. Successful usage of the
coaching-mentoring model to assist faculty trying to obtain QM-certification were identified by
other instructors. One instructor described how she made available to her colleagues her
proposed class, comments from QM-peer reviewers, and her revisions. The same instructor noted
she had worked one-on-one with other faculty members on their courses. The Instructional
Designer described a number of one-on-one consultations with faculty members as a way of
delivering information. “Just-in-time” instructional models as well as mentoring approaches
should be considered as alternative delivery formats for, or at least comprise some of the
elements of, all BOR Courses.
Creating a course that instructors perceive as beneficial and worth the required time and
effort is more problematic. A number of issues complicate this matter. The time factor appears to
be crucial to the decisions of many instructors who expressed interest in a course offering, but
did not enroll, or enrolled and did not complete the course. A sample of these individuals should
be interviewed to gain deeper insight into their rationale for not enrolling in or completing a
course. The time commitment was even raised by one individual who did complete a course. An
understanding of what instructors want from a course and what would enhance faculty
perception that a particular course or curriculum is meaningful or beneficial to them is critical to
increasing enrollment and retaining students.
Research studies support the idea that adults, and especially professionals, “learn what
they feel is important to them” (Parsell & Bligh, 1996, p. 284). A part of the rationale for
offering the “Critical Thinking” course was faculty demand. When surveyed in 2010, faculty
Final BOR Grant Review 17
members identified training in “developing student critical thinking skills” as their area of
highest interest. Yet, when the course was offered only four individuals engaged in the course,
and only three were faculty members. Because of the immense time investment by course
developers, consider researching in greater detail what type of training instructors want. For
example, do they want strategies or activities they can use in the classroom? Do they want to
understand theory? Based on the commitment to the “Online Course Design with QM” and the
limited time available to faculty, instructors may be more instrumental in their learning goals—
wanting a product they can put to immediate use. To that end, identifying what faculty members
really want from a course or a program becomes critical to its design.
Additionally, one theory of adult learning suggests that adults take advantage of learning
opportunities when they have excess energy or power to deal with the demands of their lives
(Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). With this framework in mind, it is important to
stay attuned to the rhythm of teaching. Courses offered toward the end of a semester may be less
likely to attract faculty members because of the end-of-semester time commitments in their
teaching.
The length and depth of exploration within courses may also be an issue. The curriculum
map for these courses identifies different levels of proficiency that are developed within the
courses including foundational, in-depth, and applied mastery levels. Consider designing courses
to follow the natural breaks in sophistication that have already been identified. Participants might
be more willing to make a three-week commitment to complete a course module, than a three-
month commitment. This approach is consistent with the theory that underlies learning contracts
in which students and teachers negotiate for a minimum level of performance and then provide
Final BOR Grant Review 18
opportunities to enhance a student’s grade and learning through the student’s completion of
additional activities (Parsell & Bligh, 1996).
As noted by several individuals in their interviews, the program must include a way for
enrollees to “CLEP-out” of courses or modules in which they are already proficient. Assessment
modules or tasks must be designed to measure skill or knowledge. Course designers must decide
if any credentials other than testing will satisfy this requirement. Conversely, decisions must be
made on what level of pre-requisites must be satisfied before someone is allowed to enroll in a
course. At least one course designer encountered a student he believed was under prepared for
the course. He believed the student’s lack of knowledge altered the way he taught the course. If
pre-requisites are instituted, some alternative way for a student to satisfy the pre-requisite
requirement should be developed.
Concern exists with regard to faculty motivation for taking courses. Even in these
difficult economic times, compensation of either time or money may be required. A few
instructors have an internal motivation to take courses. As one of the interviewees remarked, “If
they offer a workshop, I’m there.” This attitude seems somewhat rare. Those who are more likely
to respond to external motivation must see a direct benefit from pursuing a course. In addition,
consider some form of acknowledgment in which instructors who successfully complete a BOR
Course are recognized and have an opportunity to share their learning with others.
The designs of the BOR Courses either currently address or have the potential to address
some of the issues noted above. In addition to embedding mentoring and coaching opportunities
within each course, opportunities for incentives and recognition may also be present in the
current system. In most instances, based on my limited time on campus, I am able to identify
potential partners for a particular course. Those with more knowledge of campus resources and
Final BOR Grant Review 19
organizations will, I am certain, be able to identify other potential collaborators. Consider ways
to engage these partners into an active alliance with the BOR Courses. Table 5 identifies the
elements that appear to have contributed to the successful retention and completion of the
“Online Course Design with QM” and suggested additions to all courses to enhance retention
and completion. Following Table 5 is a discussion of the Curriculum Certification program
anticipated by the BOR Grant and currently under development by the Office of Faculty and
Staff Development. Many of the concerns raised in this section apply equally to the
establishment and sustainability of the Curriculum Certification program.
Final BOR Grant Review 20
Table 5. BOR Course Elements and RecommendationsElements QMM LCTP CT ASSMT CIOne-on-one coaching
One-on-one coaching for most of course for QM certification of a course.
One-on-one coaching for final product of Action Research plan.
Potential for one-on-one coaching in current capstone of developing a critical thinking activity for class. Provides for peer coaching.
Potential for creating an assessment activity for classroom use.
Potential in activity development (may already be embedded in course).
Meaningful product
QM certified course Action research plan Critical thinking activity
Assessment activity (Potential)
Collaborative learning activity (Potential)
Incentive Required for participants in TVC-certification program
Possibility of submission to Mini-grant program.Consider collaborating with Mini-grant program, so that projects developed in this course receive funding.
Recognition
Consider recognition at Convocation if not already done.
Consider presentations (poster sessions, panels, or workshops) at Convocation and if funding is available, attendance at a Conference to present.
Consider presentations (poster sessions, panels, or workshops) at Convocation and if funding is available, attendance at a Conference to present.
Consider presentations (poster sessions, panels, or workshops) at Convocation and if funding is available, attendance at a Conference to present.
Consider presentations (poster sessions, panels, or workshops) at Convocation and if funding is available, attendance at a Conference to present.
Participant pool
TVC-certification participants
Faculty at all levels, but most likely more experienced faculty
Faculty at all levels, possibly staff members based on initial enrollees
Faculty at all levels, but new faculty, in particular
Faculty at all levels
Potential partners
QEP program Committee on Professional Development
Deans and Department Chairs
SOAR
Final BOR Grant Review 21
With regard to the Curriculum Certification program, identifying and resolving barriers to
success should begin in the design phase of the project and continue through implementation. A
broad cross-section of the college, including known detractors, should be convened before
design work continues. These individuals should be charged with providing meaningful input
into both design and implementation. This report identifies different opportunities to involve
faculty, staff, and administrators. Doubtless, there are many others. A front-end effort spent
surfacing and addressing controversial issues will be much more likely to lead to success than
will avoiding them. A limitation of this study is that everyone with whom I spoke was supportive
and heavily engaged in the institutionalization of the BOR Grant. Therefore, this report does not
address concerns of those who oppose or are neutral about the project.
Among the issues that should be addressed are those related to time commitments and
rewards. With no incentives to engage in the program other than a desire to learn, the likelihood
of success in recruiting and retaining faculty is low. If the administration is committed to the
successful implementation of the Certification Curriculum, resources will need to be devoted to
encouraging faculty to enroll in the courses. Otherwise, faculty are receiving the message “This
program is important, but you have to make the sacrifice of time and energy to do it. It’s not
important enough for the college to give you the time or any other incentive.” An additional
alarm is raised by the low response rate to the TVC-certification program this year. Reluctance to
enter a program provided by an external source, that those who have taken it argue was
transformational to their teaching, and that affords a portable credential does not bode well for
the success of an in-house Certification program.
To gain support for devoting financial resources to the Certification program, the in-
house program should be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. In addition to the cost savings that
Final BOR Grant Review 22
will be generated by the completion of the QEP and the elimination of the annual cost of the
TVC-certification program, the analysis should include a cost-per-seat calculation of differences
in expenses between virtual students and face-to-face students. Both TVC-certified instructors
and midlevel administrators report that the TVC training results in a higher quality course or
product. Offering quality courses that are recognized as such can provide a competitive
advantage in recruiting future students. The pressures of the GRAD Act should likewise be
considered, because a failure to improve student outcomes could result in a loss of funding and
autonomy. The connection between better training and better student outcomes needs to be
documented and communicated both to upper-level administrators who control funding resources
and faculty and midlevel administrators who control participation.
Both administrators and faculty members referenced the promotion policy in discussing
the role of professional development courses and the Certification Curriculum. A view expressed
by some faculty members was that under the previous promotion policy faculty received
recognition for participating in professional development activities, but no punishment for a
failure to do so. Some administrators expressed the view that the promotion policy should
become more punitive for a failure to participate. Delgado is currently reviewing its promotion
policy. Attempts to raise the importance of participation in faculty development as a part of the
faculty evaluation process will require strong faculty support, especially among those who
remember the previous policy. This limitation strengthens the argument for the development and
marketing of the Certification Curriculum to other institutions. The ability to acquire a portable
credential may be important to some faculty members.
The BOR Grant suggested an outcome of completion of the Digital Professor/Instructor
Curriculum would be to advise Academic Deans of those in their divisions who have completed
Final BOR Grant Review 23
the program. It is critical to recognize that Academic Deans currently have primary responsibility
for identifying and scheduling faculty for online classes. It is essential to involve the Academic
Deans in determining the standards and process for certification. Instructors who have achieved
TVC-certification are viewed as assets by midlevel administrators I interviewed, in part because
these instructors experience fewer student complaints and higher student satisfaction levels. If
these administrators’ reactions are consistent with their peers in other divisions, high levels of
support for the Digital Professor/Instructor Certification program should exist. Failure to involve
these administrators, however, will likely result in high levels of resistance based on a perceived
undermining of their autonomy. Scheduling and course preferences for those who complete the
Digital Professor/Instructor Certification program, so long as this effort has the support of faculty
and midlevel administrators, would create another benefit for obtaining certification.
Efforts should be made to develop a uniform and consistent Web presence for all
Certification Curriculum courses. The current BOR Courses lack this consistency. Especially if
Delgado officials intend to capitalize on the possibility of marketing this curriculum to other
institutions, it will be necessary to “brand” the courses in a way that makes them distinctive and
uniform. All banners should be the same and the same types of information should be available
behind each. Logos and headers should be consistent and irrelevant material should be deleted
from the course sites. Future course developers should follow the same procedure. Currently, one
of the BOR Courses exists in a different platform from all others. Once Delgado determines its
platform choice, all courses should be migrated to the same platform.
Resources must be made available to compensate those who design and teach future
courses. Whether the institution provides stipends or course releases, the time demands for
course development and teaching are substantial. As a result, some form of compensation, either
Final BOR Grant Review 24
time or stipends, must be made to those who develop Certification Curriculum courses. Based on
descriptions of the solitary aspects of course design and the barrier that isolation presents, efforts
should be made to provide social support to those who are developing courses. This support will
require a careful balance so developers will feel they are being supported and not harassed.
The Certification Curriculum may be most appealing to new faculty members who are
entering classrooms with little or no training in pedagogy. In their first year of teaching,
however, this group will likely have the most time constraints. Consider ways to engage these
faculty members early in their careers in ways that tie them to the Certification process without
over burdening them in their first year of teaching.
Grouping participants into cohorts who move through the program in tandem and can
provide social support to each other should also be considered. So long as the program remains
in-house, a few opportunities to meet face-to-face at least once a semester should also be
provided. Some studies, and Delgado’s own findings in its Title III report, suggest that a
compelling reason for faculty members to participate in professional development programs is
the ability to network with and learn from colleagues (Breckenridge, 2009; Steinert, et al, 2010).
Anticipating this motivation and responding to it could prove helpful in retaining students.
Based on experiences with the BOR Courses and the TVC-certification program, time
will be a deterrent to faculty participation in the Curriculum Certification program. Just as the
BOR Courses might be divided into levels, so too the certification process could be structured to
reflect an individual’s proficiency level. For example, completing all foundational-level modules
in the curriculum could be defined as Level 1 Certification. Someone who had completed all
levels of all courses in the curriculum could earn Level 3 Certification.
Final BOR Grant Review 25
Collaboration with faculty, as well as deans and department heads, will be essential in
developing the Certification Curriculum. As one administrator noted, “if faculty agree it must be
done, it will be done.” Balancing the desire for a structured curriculum with the flexibility to
adjust to shifts in learning needs will require frequent input from many sources. Research on
effective faculty development programs indicates that the support of deans and department heads
is critical to encouraging faculty members to participate in professional development programs.
In an effort to engage more Delgado instructors in the Certification Curriculum, and to
support the marketing of the program to other colleges, the Public Relations Department should
be utilized. This department should assist in developing brochures, providing stories to internal
and external media about instructor and program accomplishments, and in general “spreading the
word” about this program. Although face-to-face marketing and the respect other instructors
have for those teaching the courses is a highly effective way to recruit individual participants, a
broader appeal needs to be devised to reach all members of the college community.
The sustainability of the BOR Courses and the further development and implementation
of the Curriculum Certification program face an array of challenges. Those challenges are
counterbalanced by a number of strengths. With the BOR Courses as a foundation, the program
can build from a group of well-designed courses delivered by instructors who have the respect of
their colleagues. One of Delgado’s greatest strengths, based on my on-campus experiences, is the
commitment of everyone I interviewed to live Delgado’s learning-centered mission for the
benefit of its students. The BOR Courses and the Certification Curriculum are a recognized part
of that mission, and as such, should be sustained and expanded. Table 6 includes the concerns
and recommendations for the design, course development, and implementation of the
Certification Curriculum.
Final BOR Grant Review 26
Table 6. Concerns and recommendations for Certification ProgramGoal Concerns RecommendationsDesign competency-based curriculum for Certification Program.
The level of prescriptiveness of the program curriculum
Engage a cross-section of college faculty and administrators, especially including detractors, to assist with curriculum design
Create courses for Certification Curriculum.
The length of time required to design courses
Provide compensation to developers/instructors either with time or stipends consistent with effort
Provide social support to developers during development phaseImplementation of competency-based Certification Program.
Low enrollment Engage a cross-section of college faculty and administrators, especially including detractors, to assist with implementation
Collaborate with all constituenciesDocument relationship between training and outcomes to encourage participationIdentify what faculty members really want from their trainingUtilize Public Relations Department to assist with marketing and media
High attrition Develop a coaching-mentoring model for some courses or modulesProvide an identifiable, meaningful product as a course outcomeProvide “just-in-time” learning modulesInclude at least one face-to-face meeting opportunityIdentify course-prerequisites and ways to satisfy requirement
Time required to take course
Develop different proficiency levels within coursesProvide a system for “CLEP-ing out” of courses
Lack of incentives for participating
Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to locate potential resourcesDocument relationship between training and outcomes to support funding requestsProvide time or monetary incentives for participationProvide some form or acknowledgement or recognition for participationConsider relationship between training and promotion, but only after engaging
faculty and midlevel administratorsConsider relationship between Digital Professor/Instructor Certification and teaching
online, but only after engaging faculty and midlevel administratorsTiming of course offerings
Identify the “rhythm of teaching” to coordinate course offerings with periods with lower time demands on faculty members
Expansion Market Certification Curriculum to other institutions within and without LouisianaMake all course architecture and Web design uniform to “brand” the coursesUtilize Public Relations Department to assist with marketing and media
Final BOR Grant Review 27
Partial List of Works Referenced
Delgado Resources
Board of Regents Support Fund Enhancement Program. (2009). Development and implementation of a comprehensive (competency based) faculty development curriculum program.
BOR Course. Assessment for learning (web-based course).
BOR Course. Collaboration and inclusion (web-based course).
BOR Course. Critical thinking in the classroom (web-based course).
BOR Course. Learning-centered theory and practice (web-based course and assessments).
BOR Course. Online course design with QM (web-based course).
Breckenridge, A. (2009). Cohort report on Title III academic objectives: Focusing on learning to increase learner success.
Division of Distance Learning & Instructional Technology (2010). Working papers for faculty development grant: Faculty development program & curriculum mapping competency domains, indicators, & courses.
Division of Distance Learning & Instructional Technology. (2011). Working papers for online faculty development program.
Faculty development survey results. (2010).
Quality Enhancement Plan, Assessment Report (2008-2009).
Quality Enhancement Plan, Management Team Report (2010).
Strategic gales for Delgado Community College 2011-2016.
Interviews with Delgado Faculty, Staff, and Administrators
Breckenridge, A. June 9-10, 2011, and related e-mail correspondence.
Conroy, P. June 20, 2011.
Edwards, S. June 9, 2011.
Givens, A. June 10, 2011.
Final BOR Grant Review 28
Johnson, J. June 9, 2011.
Kern, D. June 9, 2011.
LaCour, M. June 9-10, 2011, and related e-mail correspondence.
Lea, D. June 10, 2011.
Sarrazin, C. June 10, 2011.
Siegrist, C. June 10, 2011.
Smith, F. June 10, 2011.
Stamm, T. June 9, 2011.
Thomas, B. June 9, 2011.
Other Sources
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Wiley.
Parsell, G. & Bligh, J. (1996). Contract learning, clinical learning and clinicians. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 72, 284-289.
Pchentichnaia, L. V. (2007). Essential and model programs for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities: A Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.
Steinert, Y., Macdonald, M.E., Boillet, M., Elizov, M., Meterissieri, S., Saleem, R., Ouellet, M., McLeod, P. J. (2010). Faculty and student support: Faculty development: If you build it, they will come. Medical Education, 44(9), 900-907.