Steering the Course

Creating Excellence and Consistency in eLearning

WCET 2010 Annual ConferenceSan Diego, California

Presenters

• Paula Bigatel, Ph.D. , Instructional Designer, Penn State World Campus

• Michelle Kline, Academic Coordinator, Bachelor of Business Inter-College, Penn State Greater Allegheny and Penn State World Campus

• Stephanie Tyworth, Senior Program Manager, and Director of Health Programming, Penn State World Campus

Overview• Session Objectives• Setting the Stage• The BSBIC and its Environs• Communication, Collaboration, and

Consistency: A Successful Strategy• Lessons Learned• Applications• Discussion, Q&A

Session Objectives

• Identify strategies for fostering inter-institutional communication, collaboration, and cooperation in the development and delivery of an online degree program.

• Describe an effective approach for ensuring curricular consistency in courses and programs offered by multiple academic units in multiple formats.

Penn State World Campus

• A brief history• Programs• Enrollments• Financial model• Instructional model

Timothy Few – BR

The Bachelor of Science in Business

• Offered f2f at 17 residential campuses and fully online through World Campus

• Student profile

• Faculty profile

• Curricular variation—to negotiate or not!

The Penn State System

Goals

• Gain agreement among 17 diverse institutions on program and course outcomes

• Ensure alignment and consistency between the residential programs and the online degree

• Develop institutional support for the online program

• Involve multiple faculty across the system in both course development and delivery

The Strategy

• Syllabus Team – Faculty who teach the course in residence– Designer, program manager, coordinator– Primary author and course reviewers– Collaborate to draft syllabus, select texts,

consider activities and assessments– Team involvement throughout development

cycle

Phase I – Syllabus Team Retreat

Meet and greet

Overview of WC

development process

Overview of timelines and deliverables

Syllabus discussion and

planning

Examples of Instructional Technologies and Design Approaches

• Example 1 – BA 321 - interactive activity• Example 2 – BA 322 – use of web 2.0

technologies i.e., YouTube, Elluminate Live

• Focus on use of multimedia and web 2.0 technologies that engage students in student-centered active learning

Phase 2: Course Development

Lead author writes content/activities/

assignments

Author communicates with

Syllabus Team through ANGEL

Reviewers suggest improvements and

provide input on content

Coordinator monitors progress and intervenes as

needed

Development timeline (over 2 semesters)

Phase 3: Delivery

Lead author teaches first offering

Reviewers positioned to instruct future sections

Lead author, reviewers gain experience applicable to both f2f and online teaching and course development

Advantages

• Variety of perspectives and expertise brought to course.

• Courses not tied to specific author• Expanded instructor base • Buy-in from faculty and administrators• Emergency back-up

Disadvantages

• Extended course development timeline• Added expense (faculty compensation,

travel costs, staff time)• Increased potential for conflict

– Curricular disputes– Personality clashes– Work-style differences

Keys to Success

• Patience and humor• Strong, respected lead author• Blend of experienced and new(er) faculty

on teams• Communication• Flexibility and contingency planning• Swift resolution of “issues”

Beyond the BSBIC• Cross-listed courses• Programs/courses that cut across multiple

academic units• General education courses (high enrolling,

numerous sections and faculty)• Courses and programs that involve more

than one academic institution• Contract or customized programs

Questions/Comments

Thank You

• Contact information:

–Paula M. Bigatel – pmb6@psu.edu–Michelle Kline – mmk20@psu.edu–Stephanie Tyworth – sst3@psu.edu