MINUTES
Distance and Distributed Learning Committee Meeting
February 4, 2005
Charlottesville, VA

Not yet approved

In attendance: 

Dr. John Downey (BRCC), Susan Beasley (CVCC), Rebecca Blankenship (GCC), Kristen Kelly (JTCC), Sara Brown (LFCC), Susan Kennedy (MECC), Linda Claussen (NRCC), Steve Sachs (NVCC), Mary Clare DiGiacomo (PVCC), Leslie Smith (RCC), Stacy Harris (SWCC), Scott Langhorst (TCC), Ruth Smith (TNCC), Charles Boiling (VHCC), and Inez Farrell (VWCC).  From the System Office:  Dr. Charlie White, Dr. Neil Matkin, Dr. Carole Schultz, Tim Tirrell, Bob Vawter, David Carter-Tod, Sue Ann Curran, and Matt Lawson.

Absent:

Reo McBride (DSLCC), William Dey (DCC), Mary Kay Mulligan (ESCC), Shelia Hobbs (PDCCC), Carolyn Bird (PHCC), Bill Hightower (SSVCC), and Maureen Murphy (WCC).

I.  Welcome and Introductions

Dr. Downey, Committee Chairperson, welcomed the group to the meeting.  He then introduced Dr. White and Dr. Matkin.  They were invited to present to the committee their vision of how they see the DDLC best functioning to implement their charge.

II. Remarks from Dr. Charlie White, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Services

• Views Academic Services and Research (AS & R) and Information Technology Services (ITS) working together as ITS manages the infrastructure and AS & R manages academics.
• Wants faculty, when they come up with ideas or projects, to present them to their DDLC member.  The DDLC member can then share the idea with the rest of the committee and the group decides if they want to take it on as a project.  If so, then it is brought to ITS and AS & R to determine if they have the resources.  Projects originate at the colleges rather than being driven top down from the VCCS. 
• Goals from teleconference meeting on the Federal Earmark:
  
  • Enhancement of course management system (Blackboard)
  • Learning object repository (Gives him heartburn but will support it if the colleges want it.)
  • Enhancing the System Office role in maximizing resources.
  • E-learning goal  - wordy (not sure what it means).
  • Promoting more college choice in curriculum development.
  • Seeking additional federal funds
  • Developing a VCCS portal (Chancellor likes this idea).
• Colleges need to decide what they need to support excellence in distance and distributed learning.
• VCSS needs to have a professional development program to meet faculty where they are (provide either training or resources for training)
• The Chancellor has asked Dr. Matkin and the Technology Council to look at IT staffing on the campuses.  (issue:  equipment rich, staff poor?)
• How do we provide for our smaller schools as well as our larger schools?

Comments by committee members:

Problem identified by Charles Boling:  We are good on the information side of IT, but not the instructional side of IT.  What are the minimum standards for staffing for distance learning?  Can the committee define the roles and responsibilities of an instructional technologist?

Charlie White:  Can the DDLC make that recommendation?

John Downey:  In order to do so, we need to articulate our needs as a system, not as individual colleges.  What support do we need at the colleges to meet the vision of Dateline 2009?  What support should be centralized?  Our immediate need is to organize ourselves as a DDLC to most effectively make recommendations on these and similar topics to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Services and Research.

III. Remarks from Dr. Neil Matkin, Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Services

• When he first arrived, all of the IT staff had not met each other.  His direction has been to have the IT staff focus on two goals:
  
  • 1) Put students first. 
  • 2) Service without excuses.
• All students and faculty care about is whether the technology works or does not work.
• A major goal is to have data-driven strategic planning and accountability.
• Brought in Michael Dickson, a nationally known Distance Learning expert and facilitator to work with a group of Presidents and other college administrators.  In the short term, they are looking at how to use the federal earmark, and more broadly at future directions for distance learning in the VCCS.
• The Chancellor has stated that colleges should develop/deliver/own their course offerings rather than having such courses developed at the System Office.  He is concerned about programs funded out of federal dollars or other grant funds that will eventually go away and leave an unfunded mandate for the colleges to continue the programs.  He has also stated that the System Office must show accountability for the tech fee funds and demonstrate that they are being employed to provide efficient and effective services. 
• The VCCS distance learning infrastructure is a half-billion dollar industry.   
• Our mission is “not about ownership, but about service”

We need to know when to think as a system and when to think as colleges and become forward-looking.  The System Office has too often over-promised and under-delivered.

Comments:

Leslie Smith noted that although transfer was a core concern of the VCCS, some colleges (William and Mary and Mary Washington) do not accept distance learning courses for transfer credit.  They make their students sign a form stating that their courses are not distance learning courses. 

A motion was made and seconded to ask Dr. White to present this issue to the Chancellor to address with the presidents of Mary Washington and William and Mary.  The motion passed.

IV. Update of DDLC Membership

John Downey asked the group to make any corrections to the membership list in the meeting packet.  He made the corrections and told the group that he would send out an updated list (Please review ATTACHED LISTING).

V.  Web Conferencing Pilot Update

A sub-group of the DDLC has been investigating Web Conferencing systems as voted upon at the prior meeting.  Inez Farrell presented the results of a survey of VCCS colleges.  While there appeared to be general interest in an audio plug-in to Blackboard, such as Wimba, there did not appear to be an overwhelming interest in an enterprise version of a conferencing system.

It was suggested that the some of the smaller colleges who cannot afford to purchase a system should form a consortium where they come to an agreement between them and the System Office to share hardware and support.  The challenge is in finding a middle ground between every college sharing an enterprise system and many colleges having nothing.

The DDLC could identify critical functionality (needs assessment) and put out an RFP.  The problem is that we often find the product first and then shape our needs to the product’s functionality.  The system needs to get beyond product-specific evaluations and conduct formal evaluations and needs assessments.

Linda Claussen made a motion to advise the VCCS according to the wording of item #1 as listed in the agenda packet: There does not appear to be a widespread desire for an enterprise version of web conferencing software at most colleges in the VCCS.)  Inez Farrell seconded the motion.  It passed unanimously. 

The discussion then turned to Blackboard building blocks and how, without knowing what is out there, it is difficult to determine what faculty needs are not being met.  An example was given about a building block that grades discussion board participation.  Other building blocks being looked at include Turnitin, a plagiarism detection software, and Wimba.

Since the LSA’s have a building block work group, it was suggested that the DDLC work with them.  Scott Langhorst also suggested that Blackboard Users Conference participants should examine and evaluate Building Block demos. 

Sara Brown made a motion for the DDLC to work with Jennifer Smith (CVCC), leader of the Building Block work group, and with Blackboard Users Conference attendees to evaluate Building Blocks.  Charles Boiling seconded the motion.  It passed unanimously.

VI. Blackboard Update

Matt Lawson provided the DDLC with a demonstration of Directory Services 2.  Directory services 2 provides an enhanced service to students, faculty and staff which will be available at the same time as the PeopleSoft upgrade.   Next, David Carter-Tod gave an update of the Blackboard 6 Migration timeline and Sue Ann Curran presented the training opportunities and schedule for Blackboard System Administrators, interested faculty at New Horizons, and through informal meetings at during the Blackboard Users Conference in Baltimore.

VII. Election of Representative to the Technology Council

John Downey was elected as representative to Tech Council.  Inez Farrell was elected to serve as the alternate.  Both were elected unanimously by the committee.

VIII. VCCSOnline Status

The group discussed the online application and students taking classes at more than one college.  Despite the perception that there is a VCCS policy to the contrary, many  students wanting to take classes at multiple VCCS colleges are asked to fill out the application for admission multiple times.  The student must also be term-activated at the each college in order to register. 

Carole Schultz suggested the group draft a position paper on how to remove barriers for students taking courses at more than one college.  This suggestion was discussed further at a later point in the meeting as a method for advising the Vice Chancellor on the thoughts of the DDLC in helping the System meet the goals of Dateline 2009.

Inez Farrell shared a story of a student wanting the e-rate for an online biology course.  Since it is a science course with an in-person lab, it was not coded for the e-rate.  They had to create a separate section and register this one student so that he could get the e-rate for the online lecture portion of the class.

Steve Sachs asked if there was a market for the e-rate.

Carole asked the group what courses they want to list in VCCSOnline.  They need to know what data to pull out of PeopleSoft so that students are clear regarding the delivery method of courses.  The basic challenge is regarding how many campus meetings are required for any course listed in VCCS on-line.  Students have the assumption that courses listed there are 100% web based.   The course coding issue is related to this issue in that the definitions we employ for various courses are used by students for planning schedules across colleges.  This issue will be discussed further at a future meeting when Rebecca Kittelberger is present.  Some of the issues may also be addressed as part of the position paper idea advanced by Carole Shultz.

IX. Course Coding Status

Tabled until Rebecca Kittelberger is present.

X.  Learning Object Repository (LOR) Steering Committee Representation

• Carole Schultz said that the status of it is “up in the air.”  The LOR is part of the first phase of the federal earmark which must be spent by September.  The Chancellor wants an RFP to go out in March for an LOR that handles two facets:  structured content and unstructured content. 
• They want to form a steering committee with vice presidents, two members of the DDLC, ITS, and faculty.
• Inez Farrell asked how an LOR compared to the Blackboard Content Manager (Bb CM).  Carole Schultz stated that the Bb CM would not have everything that an LOR does, such as intellectual property rights.  She asked Tim Tirrell to explain issues with video.  Tim stated that Bb CM does not “ramp up” and that not every VCCS faculty member is using Blackboard (limiting faculty access).  There is also an issue of how you search for video.  The VCCS needs something that will tie all these things together.
• Tim and Carole participated in a project with other colleges and systems regarding the use of LORs.  The project participants tended to avoid evaluation of Blackboard and WebCT since they are proprietary products, and a goal of that group was to make LOR content accessible by the widest possible range of faculty end users.    
• Ruth Smith stated that a content system such as Blackboard is good for sharing content, but totally different from an LOR. 
• The difference of indexing and searching capabilities was brought up. 
• Steve Sachs also mentioned that many faculty do not want content that is only accessible from Blackboard.
• Carole stated that the DDLC needs to reconcile what meets the VCCS needs.  She also stated that we need to pull librarians into this group.
• Rebecca Blankenship volunteered to represent the DDLC on the LOR steering committee.

XI. Other Business

Portal – Scott Langhorst

Scott stated that TCC will have a working portal by the end of the semester.  TCC has a “portal engineer” and they have a Campus EAI grant from Oracle, but they are not sure if they are going to accept it, because the grant requires a five-year commitment.  They have a 60-day prototype period now.  They have a content management team for this portal project and they will also be giving a presentation at New Horizons. What Matt Lawson has done with Directory Services 2 is very helpful for the portal project – the underlying single login.

Mary Clare DiGiacomo shared information regarding a proposed bill in the General Assembly suggesting the creation of an Office of Learning Technology at SCHEV.  At the moment, there is a learning technology advisory committee to SCHEV.  Carole Schultz, Tim Tirrell, Scott Langhorst, and Laura Franklin represent the VCCS on it.  Mary Clare noted that the proposed legislation is currently tabled in a House committee.

Inez Farrell stated that she is doing a survey for here college looking at attrition and withdrawal rates to determine problem areas.  She indicated that a similar survey at the VCCS level would be helpful to determine success rates across teaching modalities.

Carole Schultz stated that a similar report is run every year at the VCCS that indicates withdrawal and grade distributions for distance learning courses.  This year Bob Vawter built queries to compare full-time faculty and adjunct grade distributions.  Carole indicated that they are planning on presenting their preliminary findings to the Council of Presidents (ACOP) in February and that it is on the Vice Presidents’ agenda for March.  John Downey suggested that after presentation to ACOP and the VP group Carole may want to present the results to the DDLC as well. 

John Downey also mentioned that the BRCC’s Educational Foundation Board found the data from the VCCS blackboard survey administered last summer to be very interesting, especially in regard to the numbers of students still using dial-up etc.  John asked whether the VCCS had plans to replicate that study.  Carole replied that it was part of a pilot study and they would like to replicate it.  In the survey, students generally stated that instructors are the primary source of help for students with technology questions.  Therefore faculty have a great need to know where students can be referred to get additional help for complex issues. 

XII. Dateline 2009 and VCCS Distance Learning Plan – Where are we heading?

John Downey asked the group to review Dateline 2009, the Chancellor’s current goals, and the VCCS Distance Learning Plan from 2001.  John suggested that the DDLC ought to advise the System regarding how colleges could best be positioned to respond to the objectives outlined in these documents.  In John’s view, the DDLC has a role in advising the system what needs to be done in order for colleges to effectively contribute to those goals.  John suggested that Carole’s idea of a position paper might be an effective tool for outlining for the Vice Chancellor the perspective of the DDLC relative to Dateline 2009.  It was suggested that DDLC volunteers form work groups and write a position paper on the suggested resources required at the colleges and the VCCS to accomplish Dateline 2009 goals.  The group agreed that the next meeting could be devoted to a work group drafting and/or editing a position paper.  John Downey agreed to solicit volunteers to work on the project to produce a draft for committee members to react to, debate, edit and revise at the next meeting. 

XIII. Next meeting:

The Technology Council meets April 4-5 in Charlottesville.  Members suggested that the DDLC have an electronic meeting a few weeks before the next Tech Council meeting to discuss relevant issues and work on the position paper draft.  One member advised John to work around the blackboard training scheduled for March.  Therefore the next meeting of the DDLC will be on Friday March 25, 2005, and it will be an electronic meeting.  Details on the technology that will be used for the meeting will be sent out in early March.

At the end of the meeting Tim Tirrell gave the group a handout from the Alliance of Higher Education Competitiveness with a summary of findings for what makes internet learning successful.

There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.

          UPDATED Tuesday, February 15, 2005, 3:12:39 PM