Year 1 Final Report
Supporting Online Learners:
A Statewide Approach to Quality Academic Support Services
This project, led by the Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium (CTDLC), has three major components. Working with 11 participating two and four year, public and private institutions, we are: 1) designing and implementing an electronic portfolio framework; 2) developing a technology literacy assessment plan; and 3) continuing to grow the collaborative online tutoring project. These three projects comprise a broad suite of academic support services for online students, services that are also beginning to have an impact on teaching and learning at the participating institutions as well as serving students who aren’t distance learners. Each of these components will be examined separately after a brief discussion of changes that have affected the grant as a whole.
In general the work of the project is proceeding well, although in some cases, more slowly than we anticipated. This is in part due to our late notification of our grant’s acceptance so that we were slower starting the project than we had hoped and, for some components, due to changes in our conception of what needed to be accomplished in order to be successful. Nevertheless, we anticipate meeting all of our goals and objectives by the end of year three.
There have also been a few changes that have affected the entire grant project. Two of the original participating institutions, from the Connecticut State University System, withdrew from the project and one new institution, University of Connecticut Continuing Education, was added. Connecticut, like many states, is in a major budgetary crisis which has resulted in layoffs of state workers and an early retirement program. Along with normal staff changes, this has resulted in a change in project direction at one institution, the retirement and part-time re-hiring of another project director, a change in academic leadership at several of the institutions, and a general climate of “crisis” as a result of these unplanned changes at the public institutions. None of these changes has affected the work of the project specifically. Despite some impact at individual institutions, we don’t expect them to alter the revised timelines we have set to achieve our goals.
Electronic Portfolio Project: The work during the first 9 months of developing a collaborative electronic portfolio platform has been wonderfully creative and energizing, both in the work done in the various inter-institutional committees and within the participating institutions. This process has compelled individual institutions to re-examine issues involved in assessment and advising and in many cases to involve members of the academic and student affairs communities in new ways to consider how best to develop and then implement the eportfolio:
· “…during the past academic year there have been more conversations about e-portfolios and more individuals involved in the process. I believe that there is a greater commitment on campus to implement e-portfolios at Quinnipiac University” Quinnipiac University FIPSE Project Director
· “Faculty have wanted to develop e-portfolios to showcase student work in the Ed Tech and CSCI departments for the past few years. This project is turning this ‘pipe dream’ which nobody had time to pursue, into reality—Lots of interest in expanding the project.” Northwestern Connecticut Community College FIPSE Project Director.
· COSC academic affairs division staff have spent quite a bit of time discussing how to make the portfolio process work for us given the fact that all of our students are ‘virtual’…” Charter Oak State College FIPSE Project Director
· “Initial discussions about the electronic portfolio and technology literacy assessment projects have taken place in every academic division of the college...” Manchester Community College FIPSE Project Director
As institutions develop and share their implementation plans, there is also an exciting cross-fertilization of participants hearing others’ ideas and going back to discuss how they might be used or adapted for use within their home institutions. The first year goal for this component was to “develop an electronic portfolio framework which can serve as an advising and assessment tool.” The objectives included developing the attributes of the portfolio to meet the goals listed above, building it, developing training protocols, and beginning to pilot the eportfolio in a program or as part of a general education assessment. We will meet this goal, but we won’t meet all of the objectives. While this is due in part to our delayed start, it is also a function of having somewhat underestimated the time it would take to work with 11 institutions, only some of whom had worked collaboratively before. The revised objectives for years one and two are listed in Appendix A:
We have added some additional components which weren’t envisioned in our original plan. In other to facilitate using the portfolios for outcomes assessment purposes, we will be providing each faculty and staff member with a portfolio and also allowing departments to maintain a portfolio. This will provide the means for faculty, programs, majors, and departments to maintain a collection of student work. We also expect that toward the end of the grant, as faculty and institutions become more aware of the functionality of the portfolio, that faculty and staff might begin to use them in a variety of new ways.
We have also become more purposeful in the way we will begin to implement the e-portfolios within the participating institutions. Each institution has developed a pilot implementation plan for a class or series of classes in which they will pilot the biographical, goal, and portfolio sections during the fall 2003 semester. Training for these “early implementers” will take place in the late summer and early fall. By mid November 2003, each institution will have developed a three year comprehensive implementation plan for their entire institution. This plan requires the institutions to think at least one year past the FIPSE grant funding on how they will continue the work begun by the “early implementers,” add an advising and career component in spring 2004, and continue to bring increasing numbers of participants to the e-portfolio project.
Although the eportfolio platform has not yet been completely developed, institutions report that the faculty and staff discussions that have taken place during this planning process have set the stage for a variety of implementation plans that will improve the quality of teaching and learning within the participating institutions.
§ “The Core Institutional Outcomes Committee has identified several potential areas where portfolios would be appropriate and a sub-committee of five are working on portfolios.” Tunxis Community College FIPSE Project Director
§ “Mostly this project has created discussion and most likely caused faculty to think about ways in which these tools may improve teaching, learning, and support services for students.” Three Rivers Community College FIPSE Project Director
§ “The E-portfolio project to date has begun to have a beneficial impact upon educational practice at the University. Because this project will bring different units of the University together, it will foster a sense of academic community.” Sacred Heart FIPSE Project Director
§ “ There is excitement about showcasing student work and the ability for students to record and see their own work as well as share work with others in a meaningful and creative way.” Northwestern Connecticut Community College FIPSE Project Director.
Despite the fact that we don’t yet have a “product” to disseminate, the FIPSE Director, Diane Goldsmith, has presented information about the project in a variety of settings which has begun to generate interest outside of the initial participants. Regular reports are made to both the CTDLC Membership and Executive committees. At a recent summit of Connecticut Higher Education CIO’s, when the project was mentioned, representatives from non-participating institutions expressed interest. A recent presentation about the development of the eportfolio (http://www.ctdlc.org/Evaluation/FIPSEdocs/FIPSE.ppt) sparked interests by the CIO of the Connecticut State University System Office and the Academic Vice President of the Connecticut Community College System Office. We discussed adding new interested institutions after the initial pilot phase, no later than summer 2004.
Technology Literacy Assessment Project: During the first 9 months of working on the technology literacy assessment component of the grant, we have come to consensus among the participating institutions about what constitutes the minimum level of technology literacy faculty expect their students to have on the first day of class. We reached this point through an open process involving research and then consensus building within and among the institutions.
Several of the institutions have started internal discussions about how to address lack of technical literacy that is demonstrated by students.
· “Discussion has begun on phase II – what to do with students who do not have tech literacy? Northwestern Community College FIPSE Project Director
· “A campus committee with representation from all four academic divisions, the student affairs division, and the information resources and technology division is holding ongoing meetings to discuss the direction and progress of the technology literacy assessment.” Manchester Community College FIPSE Project Director
Others are waiting for the assessment to be developed before having broader discussions on campus.
· “Implementation on our campus would have to wait until prospective adopters have had a chance to review the final product.” Teikyo Post University FIPSE Project Director
The minimum technology literacy statement was formulated based on a survey of faculty and staff at the 11 participating institutions. The institutional representatives on the overall technology literacy grant committee used the data to draft an initial statement. The result was reviewed by the institutional technology literacy campus committees and a refined statement of “level 1” technical literacy has been accepted by all 11 institutions as identifying a baseline expectation.
While we identified the desired components of a technology literacy assessment for the minimum skills in the statement, we underestimated the resources necessary to create the type of simulation-based assessment we were initially pursuing. We determined that this direction was too expensive to either build or buy to present a sustainable option at the scale we were considering. We have redefined our objectives to create a self-assessment tool coupled with an assignment which will allow us to examine whether students are able to accurately assess their computer knowledge and help us determine the percentage of students who don’t meet the minimum technical literacy standards. This large scale pilot will also help us determine whether this type of assessment, which is cost-effective and sustainable after the grant period, meets the needs of the institutions. Each institution is creating a plan for a large-scale pilot of this assessment in January to test incoming Spring 2004 students. At the same time we are creating a resource list of training opportunities for students who don’t meet these minimum requirements. Our revised goals and objectives for the first two years of the grant are listed in Appendix B. The evaluation plan is listed in Appendix D.
Tutoring Project: The collaborative tutoring project which provides 7 day a week online tutoring services is a cost effective model which promotes quality and maintains institutional ownership of the tutors. The objectives for this year were to expand the project in terms of the institutions involved, the number of students receiving tutoring, the number of subjects offered, and the number of hours tutoring was available. We have met all those objectives. This year 14 institutions have become part of the project. Those who are not part of the Davis Funded Initiative pay a small annual fee to help cover the cost of staffing and the platform. Each institution selects, supervises and pays for its own tutors. Most institutions pay for between 5 and 15 hours of tutoring a week. However students have access to tutors from all of the institutions for over 100 hours a week.
The online tutoring project has seen a steady increase in usage in most subject areas, particularly in the online writing lab, where usage has increased ten-fold since spring semester 2002. The number of distinct users also continues to grow.
Usage Report Comparison- Spring 02 to Spring 03Spring02
/ Fall 02 /Spring03
Total Registrations / 56 / 288 / 515Total Sessions / 114 / 423 / 614
Distinct Users / 39 / 136 / 154
New Registrations / 55 / 284 / 225
Students who use the online tutoring services rate the services very highly in the end of the semester evaluation survey:
§ “I love the Online Tutoring Program!! As an online student I do not have access to regular tutoring.... I think it is a great asset to all but especially to folks like myself who take classes on-line.”
§ “I feel that the Tutoring Program helped me receive a better grade on a term paper. I did earn an "A" on the paper.”
Institutions also report that tutoring has had a positive impact on learning.
§ “Online tutoring has had a positive impact especially for students in the writing intensive psychology course.” Capital CC FIPSE Project Director
§ “Students have certainly benefited by using our online tutoring services and their improved skills are a testimony to how the project has improved learning.” Teikyo Post University FIPSE Project Director
CTDLC has taken over the training component of the project (from the platform provider) which has resulted in a much stronger emphasis on pedagogical considerations. What is exciting and innovative about this is the collaborative effort that went into developing these materials and the resulting sense of ownership by all of the participating institutions in these materials.
The biggest challenge continues to be marketing the tutoring services to students. Some institutions have worked hard to promote the project within the institution and this has resulted in growth in student usage. Other institutions do not have the same commitment to this growth. Our plans for the next year include helping all institutions to develop an implementation plan to encourage such growth.
Evaluation: The FIPSE Project contains two types of evaluations, one conducted by our outside evaluator and the other as part of the development and deployment of the three projects. The outside evaluation plan for year one outlined three methods for collecting relevant data: