Ronald Rosati , Provost David Starrett , Dean Willie Redmond, Faculty Fellow

1. Cross-Institutional Collaboration in Course Design and Delivery: Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri Ronald Rosati, ProvostDavid Starrett, DeanWillie Redmond, Faculty Fellow Southeast Missouri State University

2. Missouri • 67 Institutions of higher education • Thirteen 4-year public institutions • Pressures • Higher education funding cuts • Shifts in demographics • Providing access to higher education • Changing state of higher education • New technologies • Student expectations Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

3. Solutions • State-wide collaborations • State-wide Course Redesign • NCAT Course Redesign to develop courses useable by all institutions • Blended Learning • AASCU-University of Central Florida-Next Generation Learning Challenges grant to develop blended courses and materials available to all institutions in the collaboration and the state • Collaborative Curriculum • Collaboration to deliver courses to students at multiple campuses to provide access to course and degree programs that are facing enrollment/resource challenges Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

4. Course Redesign • National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) • www.theNCAT.org • Course Redesign: • Redesign courses to create efficiencies • Emphasize active learning • Use technology to improve student learning outcomes • Rely on readily available interactive software • Automate course components e.g., homework, quizzes, exams • Replace single mode instruction with differentiated personnel strategies Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

5. State-wide Course Redesign • Each of the 13 public 4-year institutions is developing one redesigned course as part of the state-wide initiative • Courses will be housed on centralized site accessible to all 13 institutions • Most courses will follow the replacement model (blended) Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

6. State-wide Course Redesign • Funding: • Governor’s office • Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC) grant • Contribution from each of the 13 campuses • Campuses providing additional internal support for the Course Redesign initiative Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

7. Process • Each campus proposed one or more courses. • NCAT reviewed courses and is providing feedback to the 13 CAOs • CAOs will select one course from each campus to go through the NCAT redesign program • Courses represent high enrollment undergraduate courses, in many cases general education courses Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

8. Administration • University of Missouri System manages the initiative • NCAT established web site for the program: http://www.thencat.org/States/MO.html • Campuses communicate and share thru email, physical meetings and conference call/webinars Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

9. Timeline • Project initiated in August 2010 in response to challenge from Governor • State-wide meeting in October 2010 kicked off the process • Series of meetings in early 2011 facilitated by NCAT began the course proposal process • Courses will be developed fall 2010 with pilot implementation in spring 2012 and full implementation Fall 2012 Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

10. Outcomes • Thirteen courses will be redesigned following the NCAT model • Courses will be made available to other campuses in the collaboration to be used • Institutions don’t need to develop their own versions; shared courses reduce the redundancy across campuses in redesigning courses • Campuses are seeing Course Redesign occurring outside the formalized process yielding efficiencies and increased student learning outcomes Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

11. Blended Learning • Courses with face-to-face and online components and class meetings • Provides advantages of F2F and online learning in single course • Provides greater access and flexibility in scheduling for students • Takes advantage of online resources including textbook publisher course sites and materials, open courseware, courses packs and learning object repositories Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

12. Next Generation Learning Challenges http://nextgenlearning.org • Wave I Challenge: • Building Blocks for College Completion • Open Core Courseware • Blended Learning • Deeper Learning • Learner Analytics • Partnership, focused on blended learning: • ASSCU • University of Central Florida • 20 institutions (6 in Missouri) Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

13. Missouri • Now a seven institution collaboration • BlendedEnglish Composition course • Target = low income, under age 26 (NGLC target) • The seven institutions will develop a common online course or course components • Each campus will teach a redesigned composition course utilizing the common online materials blended with face-to-face meetings Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

14. Process • UCF is providing training and support • Blended Learning toolkits http ://groupspaces . com/Blended • Training courses: • General blended learning • English Composition • College Algebra • English Composition faculty from each of the seven campuses are currently attending the online composition and general blended training courses Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

15. Process • Campuses meeting with each other via email, conference call and physical meetings • Online component will utilize materials from toolkits, existing online textbook publisher materials and other online resources • Campuses will develop a course specific to their campus utilizing materials from the common online component mixed with face-to-face meeting learning activities Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

16. Timeline • Grant received in spring 2011 • Set up occurring over summer 2011 • Identifying instructors • IRB requirements • Faculty training occurring summer/early fall 2011 • Course development fall 2011 • Course pilot spring 2011 Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

17. Outcomes • Single common online component of English Composition course developed • Blended composition course provides advantages of flexibility and learning through two modes • Staff and faculty on each campus gain expertese in blended learning which can apply to other courses • Consistent content of composition courses across campuses in the collaboration Intercampus Collaboration and Course Redesign in Missouri

18. “Collaborative Curriculum” or “Distributed Department” Agenda Describe general concept. What is it? Why do it? Explain how it works. Review examples of successful implementation. Describe methods for successful involvement. Provided an opportunity to initiate involvement

19. What Do We Mean by Collaboration • “Distributed Department” • Multiple institutions… • Contributing courses… • To offer common components of a unique degree • How it works, in summary: • A course is offered by one university, via distance education, to all the partners • Students enroll only at their home University • No tuition or credits are exchanged among institutions • Reciprocity is expected among partners

20. What We are Not Discussing Articulation Agreements 2+2 Agreements Transfer Agreements

21. Forming a New Collaboration • Why form a collaboration?: • Improve student learning, academic quality • Use the most expert faculty in the collaboration • Expand breadth of offerings • Teach low-enrolled courses economically • Expand disciplines offered at each university • Offer more topics within disciplines

22. Issues to Consider • Tuition income share - course originator share options: • None or state appropriation component • Utilization of technology • Webinar, on-line, blended, video networks • Equal contribution from, and benefit to, all partners • Transcripts, financial aid, etc. • Access to LMS • Calendar

23. Issues to Consider • Disciplinary areas of interest • Low demand but high importance • Lab vs. lecture courses • Area of local expertise • Assignment of courses to specific institutions • Syllabi details, content of courses • Accreditation issues

24. Models to Consider Learn from existing, successful models If possible, consider joining existing consortia

25. Texas Electronic Coalition for Physics • Characteristics: • Published schedule • No tuition share • Extensive documentation: • MOU, • course equivalencies, • teaching workload agreement, • Bylaws explaining all details of coalition. • Regular coalition meetings • 10 years of successful operation • Physics: http://physics.tamuk.edu/tecp/

26. Texas Family and Consumer Sciences Alliance • Characteristics: • Sending institution receives state appropriation, receiving institution keeps local tuition • Primary mode of delivery: Trans-Texas Video Network • http://www.fcsalliance.org/

27. Tennessee Board of Regents • The Regents Online Campus Collaborative • 6 universities, 13 community colleges and 27 technology centers • 38,000 students attended classes in 2010 • Closely administered through strong centralized system • http://www.rodp.org/ • Excellent training materials: http://www.rodp.org/faculty/additional-faculty-resources

28. Other Examples: • Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance • A multi-state alliance offering fully online programs in human sciences (primarily) and agriculture • Extensive documentation • http://hsidea.org/ • Cooperative Educational Leadership Program • Collaboration to offer an UMC degree with support from multiple institutions: UMC, UCM, MSU, NWMS, SEMO • http://edd.missouri.edu/ • The Midwest Student Exchange Program (MSEP) • Send students to other institutions for degrees not offered at the home institution: http://www.mhec.org/MidwestStudentExchangeProgram

29. The Missouri Example Internal and external motivators Survey to identify priorities Pilot course offered Spring 2011 Seven courses offered Fall 2011 Initiative website: http://cstl.semo.edu/mace/

30. Survey results “Please indicate which disciplines would most likely be offered collaboratively between your institution and another institution in Missouri:”

31. Core principles for the development of Collaborative Programs • Students pay tuition only at their home institutions. • Students register at their home institution. No credit transfer. • Provider institutions provide easy access to their technology infrastructure. • Instructors deliver grades to instructor-of-record at home institutions. • Courses follow the calendar of the provider institution.  • A committee of faculty representatives determine course details, quality control and course ownership.

32. Schedule of course offerings

33. Logistics to operationalizecollaboration Develop & sign MOU Develop and publish operating principles Develop collaboration website Transfer ownership to departmental committees Keep it alive!

34. Next Steps at Today’s Conference Join with like-minded partners Select collaboration model Complete collaboration form to identify: courses, timelines, contact information, group leader Report back to larger group Follow-up after returning home

35. Develop your action plan Questions, logistics….