1. Rethinking Course Development:
Competing on Quality
Larry Gould
American Association of State Colleges and
Universities (AASCU), Academic Affairs Winter
Meeting, February 9, 2008, Tempe, Arizona
3. About Fort Hays State University
• Founding member of the Higher Learning Commission’s
(HLC/NCA) alternative accreditation track known as the
Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)
• Academic Programming
52 undergraduate degree programs
19 graduate degree programs
25 programs completely accessible off-campus
• General Structure
Three divisions: academic, student affairs, admin-finance
Four academic colleges, graduate school, distance education
delivery unit called the Virtual College
4. About Fort Hays State University
• Branding Tagline: Affordable Success
• Enrollment: The Way We Were (Fall, 1998)
On-campus: 4718
Off-campus: 839
Grand total: 5557
• Enrollment: The Way We Are (Fall, 2007)
On-campus: 4449
Off-campus: 5375 (2300 in China)
Grand total: 9824
5. Distance Education Course Development
at Fort Hays State University
• Historical Context
• The First Wave: Courses
• The Second Wave: Programs
• The Third Wave: Quality Assurance
6. Why Facilitate a “Third Wave” of Distance Education
Course Development?
• A Changing Competitive Landscape: Delivery Mode Is No
Longer a Niche Growth Opportunity
• A Changing Competitive Landscape: Diversity of Schools,
Programs and Approaches
• A Changing Value Proposition: Beyond Convenience, Flexibility
and the Adult Learner
• Enhancing the Value Proposition: Positioning and Differentiation
Strategies
7. Refining the FHSU Message to the Consumer:
Perceptions of Quality
• Positioning: price, geography, faculty, product,
performance, etc.
• Differentiation: affordable, traditional campus,
responsive, 26 programs, high student satisfaction,
etc.
• Using Quality: Creating Performance Indicators and
Transitioning to the “Age of Brands”
8. Facilitating Quality Through Policy and Process
• How do we achieve “differentiation” and “brand
recognition” through “performance indicators?”
• How do we respond to learner feedback to effect
perceptions of quality?
• The Answer: Rethinking and Recasting the Distance
Education Course Development Process
9. The Process of Rethinking the Process
• Results Management: Student Evaluations, NSSE,
Noel-Levitz, etc.
• Virtual College Advisory Committee
• Center for Teaching Excellence and Learning
Technologies (CTELT)
• Office of Quality Management
• Provost’s Council
10. Elements and Implications
• Three pathways to course development
• Incorporates national standards of “best practices”
(Quality Matters) to ensure creative instructional design
through rubric based process and modeling
• Authorizing of process driven by department, college
and institutional needs
• Increases efficient use of scarce resources (people and
time)
11. Elements and Implications
• Linked to academic quality improvement work
completed during Year of the Department
• Faculty-driven, collegial peer review, and team-based
• Designed to improve both on- and off-campus courses
• Process includes phases and steps that promote faculty
enhancement and learning
12. Elements and Implications
• Recognition that teaching on-line can be overwhelming
at first and different from F2F
• Intended to bring a diversity of knowledge about course
development to the institution and promote
dissemination and archiving of best practices and new
thinking
• The new process strives to improve FHSU’s competitive
positioning and differentiation through enhanced
performance indicators (perception of quality, retention
and student satisfaction)
13. Elements and Implications
• Second horizon goals
– Build a cadre and community of on-line quality champions
– Develop a culture of collective responsibility for high-quality
course development
14. • To the student: When you turn your course
on, does it return the favor?
• Thanks
• Questions?
• Link to full process and other information:
<http://www.fhsu.edu/virtualcollege>