Minutes of the Distance and Distributed Learning Committee. Related minutes, for example, from the Distance Learning Contacts, can be read online as well.
MEETING MINUTES
1. Welcome and Introductions.
John Downey opened the meeting at 10:25 a.m. Participants all introduced themselves.
Attendees:
John A. Downey, BRCC; Kim Blosser, BRCC; Laurie Hillstock, LFCC; Mike Turner, VCCS; Steve Sachs, NVCC; Mary Clare DiGiacomo , PVCC; Rebecca Blankenship, GCC; Bill Hightower, VCCS/SsVCC; Rio McBride, DSLCC; Susan Kennedy, MECC;
Scott Langhorst, TCC; Charles Boling, VHCC; Mark Nelson, PHCC; Kristen Kelly, JTCC; Susan Beasley, CVCC; Jaime Shetrone, WCC; Ralph Lucia, VCCS; Matt Lawson, VCCS; David Carter-Tod, VCCS; Jan Klingberg for Ruth Smith, TNCC
2. Update on ASAC Educational Technology (Formerly ASAC DDLC) Committee.
Scott Langhorst provided an overview of recent actions by the Vice President's and Provosts Academic and Student Affairs Council Educational Technology committee. The minutes of that group's deliberations are appended to this document. ASAC endorsed the most recent version of the course coding document for distance learning. DDLC members were encouraged to emphasize the importance of its use on each campus…especially in regards to correct input on the course attributes panel. A report on ASAC deliberations was provided for discussions concerning proctored activities in distance learning courses, the desire for academic input into blackboard course archiving policies, blackboard plug-in issues and the Chancellor's Technology Expectations. Goals for next year's work are included in the minutes. John Downey was elected chairperson for next year's subcommittee.
3. Update on enterprise applications upgrades.
Ralph Lucia reported on the status of SIS and Blackboard upgrades. He indicated that approximately 3500 downloads of the free Symantec product have been downloaded from Blackboard by students and faculty since it was made available. ITS is also working on issues associated with the elimination of old usernames that include the last four digits of student social security numbers. General information on LDAP improvements to the directory services manager were discussed.
4. Merlot Building Block and Prioritization of other Building Blocks.
John reviewed the VCCS Discuss dialogue on the test implementation of the Merlot Building Block plug-in in Blackboard. Members agreed that methods of searching for Merlot learning objects outside of Blackboard are sufficiently accessible that implementation of that building block in production is not warranted at this time, especially given some of the issues identified in the test. The DDLC membership did endorse the prioritization of the Wimba Audio Plug-in and the Discussion Board Grader plug-in as the next two priorities for the VCCS to explore for deployment.
5. Student Portfolios.
Members discussed a request from Germanna Community College to explore the use of the student portfolio system in Blackboard. Ralph emphasized the need to identify desired features so that ITS could identify the best methods…within or outside of Blackboard…to address instructional needs in a cost effective and efficient manner. The DDLC membership endorsed a pilot program for student portfolios with nursing students at Germanna. Ralph will determine the best procedure for IT staff to work with Rebecca on the pilot project if the feature can be turned on for a pilot group limited to Germanna nursing students alone. The focus of the pilot project will be to identify instructional features of an electronic portfolio system, along with the technical specifications required for those features. The data resulting from the pilot will be used to inform the dialogue regarding the academic usefulness of on-line portfolios and the best technical methods for creating them.
6. On-line Testing Issues in Blackboard.
Steve Sachs led a discussion to gauge the extent of on-line testing issues associated with technical problems between internet browsers and blackboard testing features. Most of the issues are well documented and are known to Blackboard. Several members indicated they have experienced such problems and have found some work arounds as the issues arise. Laurie Hillstock also identified a testing software that some users may find helpful at www.brownstone.net. Members agreed to monitor the issues and discuss at future meetings of the DDLC.
7. Election of the 2006-2007 DDLC Chairperson.
John introduced the topic of chairperson election for next year and indicated that Inez Farrell expressed a willingness to accept the position if selected. John opened the floor for other nominations, of which there were none. The DDLC membership elected Inez by acclimation as the 2006-2007 chairperson of the DDLC.
8. Miscellaneous:
Ralph distributed a very helpful booklet (Attached) of information updating members regarding tasks that ITS is working on in regard to Blackboard. John thanks Scott Langhorst for his service to the DDLC and wished him well in his retirement. John pointed out tentative dates for next year's DDLC meetings but indicated that finalized dates depended partially on the timing of ASAC, Tech Council, ACOP and other meetings of the VCCS. He also asked members to provide Inez with suggestions concerning goals for next year as well as whether a two day fall meeting was desired.
9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30pm.
VCCS Academic and Student Affairs Council Committee Minutes
May 25th, 2006
DRAFT
Distance Learning Committee- Chair Scott Langhorst
Action Items:
Discussion of search attributes and ease of search by students, especially for larger colleges.
(DDLC should make recommendations to ASAC about “distance learning” definitions.)
RECOMMENDATION: The committee endorses the DL coding document as presented and recommends that ASAC endorse the document and consistently adopt DL coding procedures at each college.
APPROVED
Discussion Items:
Joint committee did not achieve consensus about extending proctored activities to all credit courses. (Need to better define/refine issues and concerns that need to be addressed.) ASAC may need to revisit issue in the future. Further discussion in Distance Learning Committee led to committee resolution.
RESOLVED - VDEN standards should be a part of all distance learning courses,
and faculty should be made aware of VDEN standards.
B. Blackboard plug-ins and enterprise implementation (e.g., MERLOT plug-in). Discussion of issues with BB plug-ins.
C. Blackboard course archive policy. Discussion of BB archive policy issues --- needs further work and future action. DDLC should make a BB archive recommendation to ASAC.
D. Chancellor’s (technology) expectations and ASAC involvement (Sullivan). What role should ASAC play in Chancellor’s Expectations? Educational Technology Committee should review and provide input to Technology Council process in mid-Fall? “Expectations vision” session (agenda item) for Educational Technology Committee at Fall 2006 ASAC meeting.
Information Items:
Marcia was willing to do quick demo of 8.9 for those interested, after meeting the concluded.
Goals for 2006-07:
1. To develop and propose a strategic direction/vision for educational technology within the Virginia Community College System (VCCS).
2. To collaborate with other VCCS committees regarding educational technology issues and concerns (e.g., Technology Council, DDLC, other ASAC
sub-committees).
3. To review and update VCCS policies and procedures related to educational technology and distance learning.
Committee Assignments:
New Committee Chair for 2006-07 = John Downey (BRCC)
1. Welcome and Introductions.
The meeting started at 10:11 a.m., John Downey presiding.
Attendees:
John Downey, Laurie Hillstock, Kristen Kelly, Charles Boling, Bob Vawter, Susan Kennedy, Kristy Walker, Mike Turner, Linda Capone Claussen, Steve Sachs, Scott Langhorst, Sue Ann Curran, Ralph Lucia, Rebecca Blankenship, Bill Hightower, Sheila Hobbs, Jamie Shetrone, Susan Beasley, Rio McBride, Inez Farrell, Mary Clare DiGiacomo, Ruth Smith, and Rebecca Kittleberger.
2. Update on ASAC actions concerning DDLC Reorganization.
Scott Langhorst read both of the ASAC resolutions to DDLC members which outlined the renaming of the ASAC DDLC to ASAC Educational Technology Committee and which clarified the role of the VCCS DDLC relative to the ASAC Educational Technology Committee.
Some DDLC members expressed concern about the proposed membership of the DDLC as worded. The wording left the appointment of DDLC members up to each College president, which is the current appointment structure a well. However, John and Scott pointed out that the CFAC representative to ASAC requested that faculty members also be appointed to the DDLC and noted that Vice Presidents were supportive of that request. Some members were concerned that some presidents might appoint a faculty member to the committee instead of an instructional technology person, who might have a broader knowledge of influencing academic technology issues. DDLC members discussed various options, including expanding the committee to include faculty representatives rather than replacing slots currently occupied by instructional technology personnel. John Downey indicated that he and Steve Sachs (the governance commission chair) would discuss DDLC committee membership with Dr. Sullivan.
Scott Langhorst read and explained the ASAC discussion item on reviewing the “VDEN Academic Standards” as it relates to proctored activities. Scott and Steve Sachs provided a history of the document and indicated that it was approved through the ASAC and ACOP back when distance learning consisted primarily of asynchronous compressed video courses. Scott mentioned that ASAC viewed the issues regarding proctoring to be broader than distance learning alone and requested a joint committee meeting at the next ASAC between the educational concerns and Educational Technology Committees. In the meantime, Scott emphasized that vice presidents were asked to survey faculty to determine the extent that proctored activities are currently happening at each college. He recommended that DDLC members should work with their VPs to ensure faculty are surveyed.
Steve Sachs talked about House Bill HR609 that just passed as part of the federal higher education reauthorization act. The bill requires colleges to verify the identity of each individual registered to take distance learning courses.
3. Update on Enterprise Initiatives.
Sue Ann Curran described current VCCS IT enterprise initiatives. Ralph Lucia then handed out a document updating the committee on ITS’ current and planned tasks that relate to Blackboard. He requested input from the committee on how to prioritize the list of tasks. Ralph Lucia also stated that ITS was still working on the Blackboard 6.3 test environment. Once that testing environment is ready, the Blackboard 6.3 upgrade can be tested to identify any issues that the upgrade may cause in production. In the meantime, Ralph wanted DDLC to provide feedback regarding the priorities of bringing the various building blocks identified at the last DDLC into production.
Ralph explained the two types of Building Blocks: Freeware & Open Source. Freeware comes “as is” at no cost. Since the source code is typically not provided with freeware, those building blocks cannot be altered if they cause any issues in production. Open Source software typically comes with the source code and thus can often be programmed differently if issues arise. Ralph also mentioned that although all of the building blocks requested at the last DDLC meeting come without a cost, ITS staff time devoted to testing and implementing such software should not be overlooked.
John Downey recommended, and the committee agreed, to start with the MERLOT Building Block as a test, since that was the only Open Source software provided by Blackboard that includes support. Once that building block is implemented and tested in the test database, then it could be launched in the production environment. Once that action is taken and the impact on end users is assessed, other building blocks could be tested using the same methodology. John suggested that the DDLC organize itself at the next meeting to develop a procedure for prioritizing additional Building Blocks for ITS. The document provided by Ralph is appended to these minutes.
Break for lunch.
Note: John Downey had to return to BRCC for faculty interviews. He asked Mary Clare DiGiacomo to fill in as chair for the afternoon.
4. Update/discussion on Course Coding for Distance Learning.
Rebecca Kittleberger handed out the “Course Coding in PeopleSoft” 3/30/06 draft and reported that the A&R Peoplesoft workgroup recommended that the document be approved by DDLC and subsequently by ASAC. Some DDLC members suggested that no one in the A&R workgroup has sufficient expertise in distance learning to understand the coding issues involved. DDLC made several suggestions for Rebecca to take back to the A&R workgroup. The major suggestions made by the DDLC included:
-Replace the term “Blended Courses” with “Hybrid/Blended Courses” so that the colleges that have used the term “Hybrid Courses” in publications can still use it.
-The committee suggested developing a category for real-time (synchronous) distance courses, such as those taught using Centra. The term “Virtual-RT” (real time) was suggested.
-DDLC Members discussed whether the term “Compressed Video” be changed to “Interactive Television”?
-If the LMS Panel is going to be used in the future for identifying courses, then should we be telling colleges that they do not have to use it now?
DDLC members discussed the possibility of a joint meeting between DDLC representatives and the A&R Peoplesoft workgroup in order to finalize the document for presentation at ASAC.
5. Blackboard Template Courses: Copy policy recommendation.
Steve Sachs recommended that the VCCS establish a policy in regards to coping courses designed as templates that do not follow the normal naming convention because they are templates and not courses offered in a given semester. Ralph Lucia explained that if a college gives VCCS ITS a course template, and indicates to them the number of courses that the college wants created based on the template, ITS can accommodate that request.
6. Update on the status of the VCCS DL Survey Committee.
Robert Vawter handed out and discussed the March 10, 2006, minutes of the DL Survey meeting.
7. “Refine toolsets in the shared course-management system.”
Robert Vawter asked the committee members to provide responses to Goal #18C, “Refine toolsets in the shared course-management system,” from the 2005-06 Chancellor’s Goals.
He indicated that members would be surveyed on this question after the New Horizons Conference. DDLC members asked for clarification regarding the meaning of “refine toolsets.” The committee was told that upgrading to Blackboard version 6.3 is one example and adding the MERLOT Building Block would be another. Bob also provided members with a list of tools that the VCCS MERLOT Team had identified in the MERLOT collection. The list is available at http://merlot.vccs.edu by clicking on “DL Tools,” which is located under the heading of “Dateline 2009 & MERLOT.”
8. Software titles purchased by the colleges to be run on their computers.
Robert Vawter told the committee that there are many software titles being purchased by multiple colleges without the benefit of pooling their purchases. The committee was told that AS&R is looking into the possibility of putting together a “software menu” of titles owned or being considered by several of our colleges. This menu would contain negotiated software prices that any college could purchase at substantial saving. This does not mean that the software would be enterprise versions but rather that contracts could be negotiated by the system for colleges to opt in or out of. The committee was asked if their colleges would be interested in this possibility, and many stated that they thought it was a good idea.
9. From the floor.
A committee member asked if there was a formal peer review form for distance learning courses. The committee was shown the “Quality Assurance for Asynchronous Distance Learning in the VCCS” plan that was drafted in 2000. This plan is located on the ITDE web site (http://itde.vccs.edu) under the “For College” menu. Some members of the committee also asked if faculty should be required to receive training on how to teach a distance learning course. Some colleges have an On-line Academy for Distance Learning instructors and PVCC has an online certification program for its DL faculty.
10. Next meeting.
The next DDLC meeting is scheduled for Friday, June 2, 2006. The meeting location will be announced as the date approaches. Mary Clare reminded the group that elections for chairperson would occur at that meeting.
Attendees:
Kristen Kelly Mary Clare DiGiacomo
Susan Beasley Bill Hightower
George Hoffman Bob Vawter
Leslie Smith Scott Langhorst
John Downey Neil Matkin
Inez Farrell Rebecca Blankenship
Steve Sachs Monty Sullivan
Jamie Shetrone Susan Kennedy
Stacy Harris Susan Wood
Response to Commission Paper
John summarized the recent history of the DDLC, pointing out the development of the position paper on the status of distance and distributed learning in the VCCS relative to Dateline 2009. He indicated that DDLC members pledged to take the lead in offering solutions to the issues cited in the position paper and that the Commissions process was an effort to do that. John asked Monty to respond to the commission memo sent in September and pointed out that the commissions were structured to address the issues identified in the position paper.
Monty thanked the committee for the work done to date and indicated that the governance structure for deciding academic issues related to distance and distributed learning was a primary concern for him. He indicated that at the last ASAC meeting, the recommendation to disband ASAC’s DDLC was withdrawn at his request. Monty indicated that he wanted to make sure that policy issues were decided by the Vice Presidents through ASAC. He recommended the augmentation of ASAC’s DDLC with representatives selected from this DDLC. He asked for an open discussion of how distance learning academic policy issues could be best addressed in the VCCS.
After a lengthy discussion, Monty suggested that Steve Sachs, as the leader of the Governance Commission, draft a proposed governance structure for determining academic policy relative to both the DDLC and the ASAC-DDLC. Steve indicated that he would distribute that draft to DDLC committee members and Scott added the topic for discussion at the next ASAC-DDLC. Monty worked to restructure all ASAC committees such that greater representation would occur for each of the four ASAC committees.
Next, Neil was asked to update the committee on some of the response time issues that occurred early in the academic year. Neil was asked about the DDLC commission suggested process for determining whether specific software requested by colleges should be elevated to Enterprise versions or not. Monty and Neil suggested that such a process should be discussed after the governance issues are settled so that the method of how policy decisions are made becomes clearer. Rebecca asked about how such decisions might be made in regards to Blackboard plug-ins in the meantime. Neil agreed to take a look at a list of free plug-ins provided by Rebecca to determine if their utility could be examined by his staff on the Blackboard test server. Rebecca compiled the list and the DDLC passed a formal request, later in the meeting, to test the plug-ins on the Blackboard test server
After Monty and Neil left for another meeting, more discussion ensued among the membership regarding governance. Several members expressed frustration over the length of time that is being spent getting organized rather than making decisions. Members expressed some support and some reservations about the proposal to have ASAC-DDLC augmented by DDLC members for policy decisions.
DL Survey
After lunch, Bob Vawter made a presentation on the preliminary results of the pilot study of distance learning students at five VCCS Colleges. The purpose of the pilot study was to establish a survey that mirrors the CCSSE so that we can administer a similar survey to distance learning students across the system on a regular basis. A meeting will be held of the survey committee in mid-March to discuss the preliminary results and to finalize the survey and a survey process for system-wide dissemination.
Miscellaneous
Jamie reported an update for Tim Tirrell on the cost for licensure of Annenberg Content beginning in the fall. Member colleges that use Annenberg video content, such as Destinos etc., should monitor developments at the Annenberg website located at http://www.learner.org/telecourses/index.html
John updated members on two separate conversations related to distance learning that have occurred. First, CFAC discussed distance learning with the Chancellor at the November meeting. As a follow up to the meeting Tom Sparhawk e-mailed CFAC reps to report that the VCCS will be updating distance learning testing guidelines. Scott reported that ASAC will be looking at the Quality Assurance Document and updating or reaffirming some of the aspects of the document at the next ASAC meeting. DDLC members endorsed a recommendation for ASAC to examine the QAD. John also indicated that the instructional deans discussed distance learning at a session they held at the Homestead in November.
DDLC members also endorsed a recommendation to ask the VCCS to study the utility of adding several free building blocks on the Blackboard Test Server for possible deployment in the production instance of Blackboard. The list recommended for consideration by the DDLC is attached to this document.
The next meeting is tentatively scheduled
for FRIDAY March 31 2006 at PVCC
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 pm.
Blackboard Free Building Blocks From Blackboard.com
Discussion Grader |
MERLOT Search (release 6.2 with JDK 1.4) This tool will allow instructors to search for educational materials available through the Multimedia ... |
Advanced Group Management |
Who's Online Portal Module (release 6) |
Document Unpackager |
Blackboard Content Player Building Block (Release 6.1 or higher) |
Add Users By Role |
From:
http://www.bb-opensource.org/download.jsp
This tool allows students/staff to search for text within a course. The extension will allow the user to choose whether to search folder names, item names, and/or item description fields. Full regular expressions are supported. Srch.zip
Frequently Asked Questions Tool
This extension is a Tool that staff can use to develop a list of Frequently Asked Questions for viewing by students. The questions are grouped into categories to help manage large banks of questions. The interface is closely modeled on the Dicussion Forum - categories/threads can be expanded to view the list of questions/messages. Categories and questions can be collated for viewing or printing and there is a search facility. FAQ_package.zip
Attendees:
Kristen Kelly Mary Clare DiGiacomo
Mark Nelson Sarah Brown
Leslie Smith Scott Langhorst
John Downey Sue Ann Curran
Inez Farrell Rebecca Blankenship
Steve Sachs Shelia Hobbs
Jamie Shetrone Susan Kennedy
Stacy Harris
Meeting Dates
John went over the agreed upon dates for future meetings and asked if there were any known conflicts with those dates. He stressed the importance of following through on meeting date times despite conflicts with numerous VCCS and college sponsored events. Sue Ann agreed to place the 2006 dates on the VCCS calendar. John agreed to forward the dates to Monty and Neil’s administrative assistants to place on their schedules early. Mary Clare suggested we ask for substitutes be sent to DDLC meetings if the member is unavailable. Discussion resulted on the pros and cons of substitute members. No formal recommendation was made in this regard. The meeting dates for 2006 are: February 3, 2006; March 31, 2006; June 2, 2006.
DL Survey
Monty asked John to chair a DL survey committee to create an instrument that will be administered to five colleges (as a pilot). The purpose of the pilot administration at five colleges is to test the survey questions and prepare a final survey that will be administered to all (or a random sample of all) VCCS asynchronous students next semester. The purpose of the completed survey that will be administered next Spring, will be to gather data regarding student’s experience in distance learning in the VCCS. The survey is meant to loosely parallel the CCSSE survey of student engagement that was administered to a random sample of VCCS traditional classroom students last April. Students enrolled in asynchronous classes were omitted from that survey due to the design of the administration procedures. The goal is for asynchronous distance learning students in the VCCS to complete the survey once every three years, just as the CCSSE is scheduled to be administered to synchronous students every three years. Bob Vawter is serving as staff to the committee from the VCCS and is doing the bulk of the work in administering the survey.
John emphasized that the pilot study is meant to test the questions and the administration procedure. However tempting, he is trying to avoid the interpretation of any data collected as representative of VCCS asynchronous students since the pilot does not randomly select a sample from all VCCS colleges. When the final survey is administered next Spring, that data will be used to determine what asynchronous students report their experiences to be
John distributed a copy of the survey and asked for any suggestions.
Scott indicated that the survey may be too long for students to complete.
Steve Sachs reminded members that students take classes in both traditional and asynchronous means and that the survey may not reflect that fact. Steve also cautioned that query data from PeopleSoft may not always be accurate. John emphasized the same and that queries run in Peoplesoft may show different results each time they are run. John indicated that when the VCCS institutional effectiveness department is fully staffed, improvements in such data can be expected. The key is whether RADDS or its successor will become available for reliable data analysis on an ongoing basis. The issue of inconsistent course coding is also related to this issue. Scott indicated that in addition to coding problems, VCCS colleges have not agreed on common definitions of distance, hybrid and traditional courses. Sarah suggested that many coding problems may reflect communication issues within and across VCCS colleges. John pointed out that even at a small school like BRCC, course coding across divisions is not always consistent. Scott pointed out that the Student Services committee of Vice Presidents and Provosts will be talking about coding issues at ASAC in December. Sue Ann indicated that consistency of definition and coding would be helpful for both research and administration issues related to distance and distributed learning.
John summarized the discussion by pointing out the three prong problem:
1. How do we define distance and distributed courses across the VCCS?
2. Can PeopleSoft data entry be limited so that coding distance and distributed learning courses is limited to one data entry field?
3. Can VCCS data entry specialists be trained across the system to ensure consistent coding practices?
Kristen expressed the concern of administering too many surveys to on-line students. Her college annually surveys students and she expressed the desire for a VCCS survey not to interfere with that practice. John suggested that establishing a consistent time for the survey administration (once every three years in April, for example) would help colleges plan for the timing of their own survey administration. He also agreed that making sure the survey length is not too long is important. Scott suggested adding a question that gets at the access mission of the VCCS. Can students tell us if we are providing greater access to courses than if the courses were not available via distance learning? John reported from memory data that Bob Vawter included in his note to faculty indicating that the VCCS has seen an enrollment declined of 8% in traditional courses and an increase in asynchronous DL enrollment of about 43%. Steve cautioned that a survey of student engagement should be only one of several methods of answering VCCS wide questions about distance and distributed learning. He suggested that the VCCS and individual colleges need good research projects with good methodology to determine the overall picture of how DL meets student needs. John reported on studies that a colleague from the Center for the Study of the First Year Experience told him about. Those studies suggest that there is little evidence regarding the impact of 50 minute, 75 minute or 3 hour classes times on student learning. However, there is evidence that time spent on task does impact student learning outcomes. John suggested as a follow up to Steve’s point, that student success studies across the VCCS for both traditional and distance learning modalities are important. Steve emphasized that point…that both traditional and distance learning effectiveness need to be assessed.
Tech Council Update
John reported on the following information from the VCCS Technology Council:
VITA has released a draft of new security standards that Neil is responding to. The cost of implementing the standards, as proposed, would be challenging. John encouraged DDLC members to have conversations with their technology council representatives on campuses. So far, higher education is not exempt from the new standards as we were in the past.
Steve pointed out that Higher Ed is exempt from the web standards but not the accessibility standards. The documentation required to demonstrate you are meeting the standards will be overwhelming if enacted in their present form.
Educause: VCCS colleges who pay their dues can now become institutional members at greatly reduced prices thanks to a VCCS negotiated agreement.
John, Scott, and Steve pointed out many of the benefits of Educause.
All technology council members got information on how Web Surveyor will be implemented across the system. The survey administration tool can handle a variety of survey methods: essay, multiple choice, and yes/no formats.
Steve reported that Microsoft licenses are out. Every college can join the alliance which gives department members home use for students and faculty for a variety of software. Steve indicated that he sought clarification regarding what constituted a department at colleges and Leslie indicated that the software license requires that the software actually be taught in courses that the department administers.
John indicated that Norton Anti-virus software is available for employee’s home use.
Several DDLC members attended the conference: “What’s next for Virginia e-Learning Environment?” Monty spoke as a panelist. Mary Clare agreed to post notes from the conference and Inez indicated official minutes should also be posted on the conference website soon.
Agenda for after lunch:
· Continue to work on Commission document.
Portal Commission
· Scott indicated that TCC is awaiting word from the VCCS regarding whether or not to proceed with their portal project.
· Subsequent discussion centered on the document of guidelines for the Blackboard Content System that the commission developed.
· The document emphasizes the need for colleges to make sure faculty are aware of fair use, copyright, and intellectual property policies. Limit the use of technology to “police” those policies is not the best method for ensuring compliance.
· A suggestion to add the best practice of citing the originator of a document that is shared was endorsed.
· Colleges retain responsibilities associated with implementation of Blackboard Content system including the following functions:
o Intellectual Property Policy— a definition of “substantial use” must be consistent across colleges. The use of Blackboard cannot be considered a substantial use at one college and not at another. DDLC members endorsed the motion that, unless agreed to by the faculty member in advance, the use of the Blackboard Academic Suite shall be regarded as an incidental use of College Resources, and NOT a substantial use.
Scott agreed to rewrite the principles to reflect the recommendations of the DDLC, and John agreed to send them out to the entire DDLC membership list.
Current Issues Commission:
· Members discussed the proposal to establish a process for academic (DDLC) input into enterprise software purchases. Mary Clare outlined her Commission’s proposal and revealed a proposed form for streamlining the process. DDLC members endorsed the commission’s general outline pending feedback from Monty and Neil. The proposal calls for the DDLC to review software requests that meet an Academic need. The proposal calls for the Vice Chancellors to create a process of internal VCCS review by their staff, inform the DDLC of the results of that review, and forward any recommendations needing a vote to the Tech Council and ASAC.
Position Paper Commission
· No further discussion was necessary, pending a formal response from Monty.
Governance Commission
· The governance structure and role of the DDLC was discussed in light of the proposal to disband the ASAC DDLC. John asked members to indicate if they believed they had the authority to represent their college on policy issues related to distance and distributed learning. Most members indicated they did. John discussed the need for the DDLC to be a policy group that functions under agreed upon guidelines established by the VCCS. It is clear that the Technology Council has the ear of the presidents through ACOP so DDLC should function in a complimentary way to Tech council…not in competition or at cross purposes.
· DDLC members recommended that DDLC in ASAC be dissolved and use input from the DDLC members in its place. This item will be discussed at the December meeting of ASAC.
· The need for more representation from Vice Presidents on the DDLC was discussed if the ASAC DDLC is dissolved as suggested.
New Business:
· Sue Ann indicated that the Blackboard content system will be available to all users beginning Monday.
· Scott asked whether colleges could limit availability of the content system. Sue Ann will investigate if it is possible to limit it by branding for TCC, but the anticipated answer is that it cannot be limited.
· Access to Blackboard 5 has been limited since the end of the summer, but all access will be turned off on December 31st, as previously announced.
· Sue Ann announced that one additional training session for new Blackboard System Administrators will be held on December 14 and 15. She emphasized the policy that any system administrators who are new to our college they must be trained in order to be granted administrative rights. After December, colleges will be responsible for ensuring new employees have that training from Blackboard’s on-line course or from their in-person training held periodically in Washington DC.
· Mary Clare suggested that PeopleSoft administrators need to be held to the same training standard as Blackboard administrators in order to avoid administration mistakes.
· Sue Ann announced plans for a Blackboard Administrator’s meeting to be held on December 16, 2005. Contact learn@vccs.edu for more information.
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Distance and Distributed Learning Committee Meeting
June 3, 2005
AT Blue Ridge Community College
In attendance:
I. Welcome and Introductions
Dr. John Downey, Committee Chairperson, welcomed the group to the meeting and Dr. Sullivan to the VCCS. John explained to Dr. Sullivan the role of the DDLC in advising him on academic matters as they relate to technology, distance and distributed learning. John indicated that the DDLC was working closely with the Technology Council and the IT side of the VCCS to foster excellent communication and informed decision making.
II. Position Paper
John briefly reviewed the history of the development of a position paper on the status and future of distance and distributed learning relative to the goals of Dateline 2009. Committee members carefully reviewed the second draft of the paper, and made several suggested edits. Leslie Smith made the motion to endorse the revised draft of the DDLC position paper with the changes made during the meeting. Scott Langhorst seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The revised position paper is attached to these minutes.
John indicated that the final draft would be presented to ASAC as an information item on June 6th and 7th, toward the goal of gaining ASAC endorsement at the fall meeting of VPs and Provosts.
III. Process needed to evaluate “Plug-ins” and other software requests from colleges.
The next agenda item concerned the point that there has been no process, nor single group, that addresses requests from colleges for the purchase of state-wide software product procurement. John cited the example of plagiarism detection software that several campuses have purchased on their own. As the demand for such software has grown, individuals have petitioned the VCCS to buy the blackboard plug-in for that software. Other examples cited include plug-ins and software for voice recording that can tie into blackboard, web conferencing software like Breeze, Centra and Elluminate, and any of the 150 plus plug ins that are likely available for use in Blackboard 6.0.
John suggested a process whereby colleges would fill out a brief form documenting the purpose or need the college sought to address with a particular software product. The college would be asked to name any known competitors to the product, the academic reasons for desiring certain features etc. Once the need was documented, a small group of DDLC members, VCCS IT and academic staff and faculty could be charged with evaluating each request and making a recommendation to the DDLC. The DDLC would then make a recommendation to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Services who would work with the Vice Chancellor for ITS to obtain approval in consultation with the technology council. John acknowledged such a process could be lengthy and burdensome and sought other ideas for the evaluation of enterprise software or negotiated priced software with a college “opt-in/opt-out” option. The discussion continued with no clear consensus on developing such a process. Some members pointed out that the role of DDLC members agreed that John would work with David Carter-Tod on the VCCS staff to draft such a written proposal for a process and discuss it next meeting. John and David agreed.
IV. Update on Blackboard 6.0
David Carter Tod and Sue Ann Curran updated the DDLC on the Blackboard upgrade. 9470 courses were migrated successfully. About 1000 courses did not have a faculty member associated with them and the VCCS was working with blackboard administrators to identify those faculty and link them with the courses. The IT staff is also working on continued issues associated with multiple EMPLIDs.
Next steps include deployment of functionality beyond what was available in BB 5.5. Staff is working on creating a small consulting workgroup to address questions associated with features available in 6.0. The major features include a community system, a content system, and integration of BB with other VCCS enterprise products like student e-mail and SIS. Policy issues identified by the small group will be brought back through DDLC for advise, and to ASAC and Tech council for action.
V. Update on VCCS Portal
Scott Langhorst made a comprehensive presentation on the progress TCC was making on the creation of a portal, its benefits, and its challenges. He sought help from the DDLC and specifically requested that any members who served on the DDLC portal committee and anyone else interested join in the discussion and planning for a VCCS portal. Scott asked that any DDLC members who could assist with the VCCS portal project please e-mail him at slanghorst@tcc.edu.
VI. Proposed meeting dates
John distributed a list of proposed meeting dates for the DDLC (Also attached to these minutes). He indicated that the dates take into account ACOP and Technology Council dates but not the ASAC meeting dates which were not yet determined. DDLC members agreed to the dates and will adjust them if they interfere with ASAC dates. DDLC members also agreed on a two-day meeting in September focused on goal setting for the year to be held in Charlottesville. John will work with Mary Clare to get that meeting arranged.
VII. Governance and bylaws.
John indicated that the DDLC is operating as an advisory body to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Services and Research, but has no bylaws or operating governance structure. John suggested that we may want to address this in some future meeting. In the meantime John suggested that an election be held for chair and asked for nominations. John was nominated and elected to serve another year as chair.
VII. Virginia Education Wizard.
Neil Matkin presented on the Chancellor’s interest in pursuing another federal earmark. This earmark would be dedicated to the creation of the “Virginia Education Wizard”. The Wizard is a concept for a search engine type technology dedicated to helping Virginia’s citizens gain easy access to information about careers and educational opportunities available to them. Rather than searching for “a needle in a haystack” the project would create a system where the user could set specific search parameters and the wizard would “reply” with specific information that responds to the users questions. Neil’s powerpoint presentation on the Wizard, along with the federal earmark proposal, will be sent to DDLC members via e-mail.
VII. WEBSURVEYOR Presentation
Alisha Taylor of NRCC made a presentation on WEBSURVEYOR software that the Technology Council voted to adopt at their June meeting. The software allows end users to create and deliver web-based surveys in a variety of ways. Alisha distributed a listing of Websurveyor features and indicated that the VCCS would be working on methods for delivery and training for the product.
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned.
APPENDIX
Virginia Community College System
Distance and Distributed Learning Committee
Position Paper on the Status and Future of Distance Learning
in the Virginia Community College System
Approved June 3, 2005 by the DDLC
The Virginia Community College System (VCCS) mission statement specifies that the state’s 23 community colleges will provide superior quality programs and services that meet the workforce development and educational needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Strategic deployment of the many distance learning delivery methodologies now available to educators is an integral way in which the Virginia Community College System has, and can continue to implement that mission in a manner that provides both access and expediency to the community served by the colleges within the Virginia Community College System.
The Chancellor of the VCCS has outlined several ambitious goals designed to address the workforce and educational needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth in a document called Dateline 2009. This Dateline 2009 Strategic Plan, when read in concert with the Chancellor’s current goals and the 2001 Strategic Plan for Distance Learning in the VCCS, clearly indicates that community colleges will collaborate to achieve remarkable growth in distance and distributed course offerings.
Some examples of specific Dateline 2009 goals that are related to distance and distributed learning include:
Enrollment: The VCCS will serve at least 16,000 new students by 2009.
Workforce Training: The VCCS will provide workforce training programs for 225,000 individuals annually, an increase of nearly 80 percent–from 125,000 to 225,000.
Transfer to 4-Year Colleges and Universities: The VCCS will triple the number of graduates who successfully transfer to four-year colleges and universities.
Dual Enrollment with High Schools: The VCCS will triple the number of high school students who take college courses and receive college credits, raising the number from 14,000 to 45,000.
Examples of specific goals of the Chancellor that are related to distance and distributed learning include:
§ Expand distance learning towards the goal of serving 100,000 students by 2009.
§ Provide superior electronic tools that enable colleges to enhance students’ ability to communicate and connect to educational offerings remotely.
§ Continue to enhance electronic services to promote student success, including on-line tutoring and advising, and completed implementation of new library system.
§ Continue to enhance the VCCS information technology and telecommunications platform, particularly related to improving the course management system and moving towards implementation of the personnel and management information systems modules.
§ Enhance collaboration between and among colleges.
§ Consolidate and upgrade help desk and customer support services.
§ Continue deployment and enhancement of the VCCS enterprise software applications to meet system goals and objectives.
§ Conduct a study to determine if high schools would benefit from VCCS hosted course management systems or extending Internet or Internet2 connectivity from the VCCS to high schools.
§ Create a library of internet and other technology-based career and professional development courses/programs.
§ Develop a matrix of shared technology services and standards and determine the
degree of successful implementation system-wide.
The VCCS Distance and Distributed Learning Committee (DDLC) strongly supports the goals related to distance and distributed learning outlined in these documents. The membership of the DDLC is committed to working with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Services and the Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Services toward achievement of these objectives. While strongly supporting the use of distance learning technologies to achieve the goals of Dateline 2009, members of the DDLC also recognize and acknowledge that there are several specific organizational and technical obstacles that hinder those goals from being implemented. The purpose of this document is to clearly identify those obstacles in order to focus the efforts of the DDLC on addressing them. We believe that through the clear identification of organizational and technical obstacles to implementation of the distance learning aspects of Dateline 2009, the DDLC membership can assist VCCS personnel, the VCCS Technology Council membership, and personnel at the 23 colleges that comprise the VCCS, to work more efficiently together in our attempts to reach the objectives.
The DDLC pledges to commit to taking the lead, in coordination with other appropriate VCCS governance groups, in developing proposals to address the issues identified in this document. By leveraging the resources of all VCCS colleges, working together, we affirm that distance and distributed learning methodologies can contribute immensely toward the achievement of Dateline 2009.
Virginia Community College System Distance Learning Values
The DDLC hereby affirms three organizational values that must pervade distance learning course delivery within the VCCS:
1) The provision of distance learning programs, courses and services are an integral method of implementing the mission of the Virginia Community College System.
2) Academic quality is of paramount importance. VCCS colleges will continue the longstanding tradition of demonstrating quality assurance in distance and distributed learning programs and thereby serve as a world class model for academic quality in the delivery of distance and distributed learning.
3) Students and faculty require sufficient support services to promote greater access and success rates in distance and distributed learning.
Primary Incentives to Employing Distance Learning for Program and Course Delivery.
The membership of the DDLC asserts that, from the perspective of individual colleges, there are at least three primary incentives to provide programs and courses using distance and distributed learning delivery methods for citizens of the Commonwealth. They are:
1) Distance learning allows citizens to access programs, courses and services that otherwise would not be available in their service region.
2) Distance and distributed learning methods provide greater convenience for citizens to overcome constraints of time and place.
3) Beyond greater freedom from time and place constraints, distance and distributed learning methods provide a myriad of benefits for students, including the ability of faculty to address their diverse learning styles, the opportunity for a greater number of participants in content discussions, and more opportunities to balance work, family and collegiate obligations.
Current Distance Learning Methodologies Used by VCCS Colleges.
Although VCCS Colleges employ a wide range of distance learning technologies, the DDLC recognizes that there are currently three prevalent methods employed to deliver distance learning programs, courses and services. Those methods are:
1) Delivery of asynchronous programs, courses and services to remote locations anywhere, using Learning Management Systems or the Internet.
2) Delivery of synchronous programs, courses and services to remote locations anywhere, using web conferencing software.
3) Delivery of synchronous programs, courses and services to specific remote locations via H323 compressed video technologies.
The DDLC also recognizes that many programs, courses and services are being delivered using hybrid methodologies which combine traditional on-campus meetings with one or more of the three methods listed above.
Challenges to the Coordination of Distance Learning in the VCCS.
The DDLC suggests that the following challenges mitigate the ability of the VCCS to coordinate and increase the number of programs, courses and services to citizens of the Commonwealth via distance learning technologies. Individual VCCS colleges are responsive to two often competing pressures. First, colleges are motivated to serve the citizens of their service region by providing access to programs, courses and services that would otherwise be unavailable. However, colleges are often constrained by funding pressures, largely driven by college specific FTE related funding. As a result:
a. Two competing factors impact FTE growth at VCCS colleges: Enrollment and Productivity. Many colleges have discovered that the primary audience for web-based asynchronous courses is made up of their own students from their own service region who desire to access courses and services in a manner not constrained by time and place. College administrators are motivated to offer such courses, so long as the enrollment numbers for distance courses equal or exceed the enrollment that can be generated in an on-campus course. However, many disciplines are such that significantly greater enrollment productivity can be achieved in classroom settings than can be obtained by distance delivery methods. Unless asynchronous distance learning courses begin to attract significant numbers of new students to VCCS colleges, there is little to no incentive for college administrators to offer asynchronous distance learning courses in those disciplines where significantly greater productivity can be achieved in classroom settings.
b. Significant policy and procedural issues still exist in regards to cross-college application and enrollment procedures. College policies that are enforced at one college (e.g. limiting the total number of credits students can take in a given semester) are difficult to impossible to enforce at multiple colleges. Students still need to complete a significant amount of paperwork to be term activated at multiple colleges and policies honored at one college may not be honored at another (e.g. placement testing policies; residency determinations). Statewide policy and procedures need to be developed to assist students in accessing programs, courses and services from multiple colleges while policies that address academic quality concerns need to be enforced across colleges. Similarly, several DDLC members see joint faculty appointments across two or more colleges as a necessary future development. Finally, different academic calendars across institutions negatively impact students that desire to take courses from multiple institutions.
c. The DDLC membership recognizes that there will frequently be a tension between the value of employing the centralized purchasing power of the VCCS to obtain and deploy new technologies, and the ability of the faculty at individual colleges to recognize the usefulness of new technology that they have not yet been exposed to. The VCCS needs an organized procedure for pilot testing new technologies, software and LMS plug-ins. The VCCS may also benefit from a flexible set of guiding principles to help determine when enterprise deployment is preferable to individual college deployment of new technologies.
d. The autonomy and independence enjoyed by the 23 individual community colleges that comprise the VCCS is a highly valued strength of the community college system in Virginia. That value sometimes conflicts with the goal of providing citizens with state-wide access to programs, services and courses for which there is a pressing need. The VCCS needs to provide state-wide leadership, in partnership with VCCS college presidents, to determine whether, when, and how key state-wide programs, courses and services will be delivered. Criteria and processes should be developed for determining when distance learning offerings should be coordinated at the enterprise level, when academic policy decisions should be enforced statewide, and when concerns of local colleges supersede the value than enterprise implementation.
e. Some institutions have developed distance learning partnerships through which distance learning programs, courses and services are provided from one location to remote regions of the state. The incentive for the receiving institutions to engage in such partnerships include the provision of programs in their service area that otherwise would be too expensive to provide, as well as the ability to gain some FTEs by providing the liberal arts courses associated with those programs. The delivering institution gains increased FTEs by expanding the service region of key programs. If such partnerships are to grow, clear incentives need to be identified for both sending and receiving institutions. For example, providing technical support and scheduling services for H323 classroom space at most colleges is challenging because of space and fiscal constraints at individual colleges throughout the system. Although such partnerships are cost effective from a state-wide perspective, they are sometimes burdensome at the local level.
f. Technical support for students and faculty engaged in distance and distributed learning initiatives has improved in recent years. However, the system would benefit from a minimal standards document that delineates expectations for help desk staffing at each college and at the VCCS, along with a clear and common job description for those positions that provide direct technical support for faculty and students.
Dates for DDLC
2005-06
1) Friday, September 23, 2005
Tech Council : October 4-5, 2005
ACOP: Oct 18-19, 2005
2) Friday, November 18, 2005
Tech Council : November 29, 2005
ACOP: December 13-14, 2005 2005
3) Friday, February 3, 2006
Tech Council : February 7-8, 2006
ACOP: February 21-22, 2006
4) Friday, March 31, 2006
Tech Council : April 4-5, 2006
ACOP: April 18-19, 2006
5 Friday, June 2, 2006
Tech Council : June 6-7, 2006
ACOP: June 20-21, 2006
Distance and Distributed Learning Committee Meeting March 18, 2005 Via Distance Learning Technology: Macromedia Breeze In attendance: Dr. John Downey (Chairperson; BRCC), Susan Beasley (CVCC), Kristen Kelly (JTCC), Sara Brown (LFCC), Susan Kennedy (MECC), Linda Claussen (NRCC), Monica Sasser sitting in for Steve Sachs (NVCC), Carolyn Byrd (PHCC), Mary Clare DiGiacomo (PVCC), Leslie Smith (RCC), Bill Hightower (SSVCC), Stacy Harris (SWCC), Scott Langhorst (TCC), Charles Boiling (VHCC), Inez Farrell (VWCC), and Jaime Shetrone (WCC). From the System Office: Dr. Neil Matkin, Dr. Carole Schultz, Tim Tirrell, Bob Vawter, Ralph Lucia, and Sue Ann Curran. Guest: Blair Potts (SSVCC). I. Welcome and Introductions Dr. Downey, Committee Chairperson, welcomed the group to the meeting. He thanked Blair Potts for arranging to host the meeting via Macromedia Breeze. II. Update from Dr. Neil Matkin, Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Services Dr. Matkin updated the committee on the status of the enterprise system upgrades. He reported that the Peoplesoft 8.0 SIS upgrade was generally progressing as expected and that the go-live process arrived with relatively minor issues. A few issues emerged with the simultaneous upgrade of Directory Services 2.0, and the IT staff at the VCCS was busily working on addressing those. Finally, the upgrade of the Blackboard 6.0 LMS was delayed one semester due to a delay in the delivery of equipment. The LMS upgrade is now scheduled for Summer, 2005. III. Position Paper The bulk of the meeting time was used to discuss and revise an initial draft (appended to this document) of a DDLC position paper authored by John Downey. The purpose of the position paper is to identify the state-wide obstacles to the coordinated implementation of distance and distributed learning objectives listed in the Chancellor’s current goals, Dateline 2009 and the 2001 Strategic Plan for Distance Learning. The draft was discussed in stages as outlined below. SECTION ONE: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: DDLC Member comments; 1. Several members made the suggestion that specific goals from the three documents listed (Chancellor’s goals, Dateline 2009 and the Strategic Plan) that are related to distance and distributed education be incorporated directly into the document itself at the end of line 36 in the attached document). 2. One member suggested making sure the document captures both the positives as well as the obstacles to implementing distance learning programs and courses in the VCCS. SECTION TWO: Distance Learning VCCS Values: 1. A suggestion was made to re-order the values listed, with the statement on mission listed first and the statement on quality listed second. (See lines 54-59). 2. Several individuals believed the focus on quality issues was critically important. Some indicated that issues of student success were integrated with the degree of student support provided system-wide. 3. Some members discussed the quality issue in relation to perceptions of quality assurance in traditional classroom courses, suggesting a need to focus on quality across all methods of delivery, not just in relation to distance learning delivery. SECTION THREE: Primary Benefits of Distance Learning: 1. Members suggested a re-wording of this section to provide greater clarity. From the perspective of colleges, there are two benefits to providing access to distance learning in a service area: First, so that constituents in that service area can access programs and services otherwise unavailable at the local college and second, to increase access or provide greater convenience for constituents to access programs and services that are already provided locally. 2. Some members suggested also listing benefits to students. In particular, distance learning provides access to a variety of learning styles that may or may not be available in traditional classrooms. SECTION FOUR: Current Distance Learning Methodologies: 1. Members suggested re-ordering the methodologies from the most frequently used method (web-delivery) to the least frequently used method (compressed video). See lines 78-85. 2. Some members advocated adding usage data to this section to reflect the preferences of students and faculty for each methodology listed. Other members advocated adding some reference to hybrid methodology (where distance learning is mixed with some on-campus classroom-based methods) OR other forms of mixed technology delivery methods. 3. Some discussion centered on whether the increased reliance of distance learning methodology was attracting new students not previously served by the VCCS or whether existing students already served by VCCS colleges were opting for the convenience of distance methodologies. Questions concerning class size and productivity relative to distance learning versus classroom methodologies were also discussed. SECTION FIVE: Challenges: 1. The slight modification to the title of this section: “Challenges t the Proliferation of Distance Learning in the VCCS”, was suggested. Specifically a member suggested changing the word proliferation to “Coordination.” See line number 87 2. Given the purpose of the position paper, most members concurred with the four preliminary issues listed. Again, members advocating re-ordering the list: First, the issues that are perceived to impact the greatest number of students should be listed, followed by the to the issues that are perceived to impact the least number of students. 3. Several additional issues were suggested to be added to the list. These include: · A discussion of obstacles related to registration issues for students desiring to take courses from multiple colleges. · Clarification of which issues the VCCS should be viewed as having the authority to implement state-wide standards versus issues that VCCS provides guidance for but local colleges have ultimate authority. · A statement advocating the joint appointment of faculty members across two or more colleges. · A statement regarding the advocacy of a common calendar across colleges for distance learning delivery OR at least a statement addressing the issues that arise for students due to the lack of a common academic calendar. · A general statement regarding funding challenges to implementation of an increase in the number of distance learning courses in a system where college-based FTEs regulate funding. · A statement advocating minimal staffing for distance learning support, with clear guidelines/job descriptions for those positions. · Others? Process for DRAFT TWO of the Position Paper At the conclusion of the meeting, Dr. Downey agreed to convene a subcommittee of the membership to work on a second draft of the position paper for presentation to the entire DDLC at the in-person meeting on June 3, 2005. That group will be convened in mid to late May. IV. Next meeting: The next meeting of the DDLC was scheduled for Friday June 3, 2005. The June 3 2005 meeting will be an in-person meeting to be held at Blue Ridge Community College, Robert Plecker Workforce Center, in Weyers Cave. Details will be sent out in early May. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned a little after 11:00AM. APPENDIX INITIAL DRAFT OF A DDLC POSITION PAPER ON THE CHALLENGES PREVENTING FULLER SYSTEM-WIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC DISTANCE LEARNING GOALS FIRST DRAFT Virginia Community College System Distance and Distributed Learning Committee Position Paper on the Status and Future of Distance Learning in the Virginia Community College System Latest revision: March 7, 2005 The Virginia Community College System mission statement specifies that the state’s 23 community colleges will provide superior quality programs and services that meet the workforce development and educational needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Strategic deployment of the many distance learning delivery methodologies now available to educators is an integral way in which the Virginia Community College System has, and can continue to implement that mission in a manner that provides both access and expediency to the community served by the colleges within the Virginia Community College System. The Chancellor has outlined several ambitious goals designed to address the workforce and educational needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth in a document called Dateline 2009. This Dateline 2009 Strategic Plan, when read in concert with the Chancellor’s current goals and the 2001 Strategic Plan for Distance Learning in the VCCS, clearly indicates that VCCS colleges will collaborate to achieve remarkable growth in distance and distributed course offerings. The DDLC strongly supports the distance learning related goals of these documents and its membership is committed to working with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Services and the Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Services to achieve those goals. While strongly supporting the use of distance learning technologies to achieve the goals of Dateline 2009, members of the DDLC also recognize and acknowledge that there are several specific organizational and technical obstacles that hinder those goals from being achieved. The purpose of this document is to clearly identify those obstacles in order to focus the efforts of the DDLC on addressing them. We believe that through the clear identification of organizational and technical obstacles to growth in distance learning, the DDLC membership hopes that VCCS personnel, the VCCS Technology Council membership, and personnel at the 23 colleges that comprise the Virginia Community College System will improve in their ability to function in an uniform manner toward the goals. Virginia Community College System Distance Learning Values The DDLC hereby affirms two organizational values that must pervade distance learning course delivery at each of the 23 VCCS colleges: 1) Academic quality is of paramount importance. Colleges will ensure that the delivery of distance learning programs, courses and services are of equal quality to campus based delivery methodologies. 2) The provision of distance learning programs, courses and services are an integral method of implementing the mission of the Virginia Community College System. Primary Benefits of Distance Learning for the Community The DDLC membership asserts that there are two primary benefits of Distance Learning delivery methods for citizens of the Commonwealth. 1) Distance learning delivery methods allow citizens to access programs, courses and services that otherwise would not be available in their service region. 2) Distance learning delivery methods provide greater access to programs, courses and services by providing a means for citizens to overcome constraints of time and place. Current Distance Learning Methodologies Used by VCCS Colleges. Although VCCS Colleges employ a wide range of distance learning technologies, the DDLC recognizes that there are currently three prevalent methods employed to deliver distance learning programs, courses and services. Those methods are: 1) Delivery of synchronous programs, courses and services to specific remote locations via H323 technologies. 2) Delivery of synchronous programs, courses and services to remote locations anywhere in the state using web conferencing software. 3) Delivery of asynchronous programs, courses and services to remote locations anywhere in the state using Learning Management Systems or the Internet. Challenges to the Proliferation of Distance Learning in the VCCS. The DDLC membership suggests that the following challenges mitigate against the growth of VCCS programs, courses and services. 1) VCCS Colleges are responsive to two often competing pressures. First, colleges are motivated to serve the citizens of their service region by providing access to programs, courses and services that would otherwise be unavailable. Second, colleges are constrained by funding pressures, largely driven by FTE related funding. As a result: a. Some institutions have developed distance learning partnerships through which distance learning programs, courses and services are provided from one location to remote regions of the state. (For example NVCC and BRCC provide access to Veterinary Technology programs to service regions across the state, one through web-based technology and the other through H323 technology). The incentive for the receiving institutions to engage in such partnerships include the provision of programs in their service area that otherwise would be too expensive to provide, as well as the ability to gain some FTEs by providing the liberal arts courses associated with those programs. The delivering institution gains increased FTEs by expanding the service region of key programs. ISSUE ONE: Greater incentives for such partnerships need to be provided at the System level for both sending and receiving institutions in order to encourage more partnerships. Scheduling of H323 classroom space at most colleges is challenging due to space constraints throughou