Leveraging success factors to increase collaboration across college and campus boundaries
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•199 views
Key factors for the operation of academic programs shared across multiple locations and strategies to ensure program cohesion.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Leveraging success factors to increase collaboration across college and campus boundaries
Ähnlich wie Leveraging success factors to increase collaboration across college and campus boundaries (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Leveraging success factors to increase collaboration across college and campus boundaries
- 1. Leveraging Success Factors to Increase Collaboration Across College and Campus Boundaries David Stone, Penn State University Park Julie Lang, Penn State University Park Jacqueline Ritzko, Penn State University Park Amy Roche, Penn State Berks
- 3. Shared Degree Programs Consortia Academic Program Delivery
- 5. Timeline
- 6. Charge of Task Force Essential Features Key Performance Indicators Support Mechanisms
- 7. Task Force Definition A successful shared academic degree program operates as one program across academic partners and is delivered across geographic locations. The curriculum is evaluated based on standards applied to all academic programs, and learning outcomes are the same for shared, and stand alone programs.
- 8. Audience Participation Are there other definitions? Why are sharing efforts underway? Who is working with shared initiatives?
- 9. Essential Features of a Shared Program
- 10. Key Performance Indicators Accreditation reviews Extended program reviews Annual learning objective reports Other university procedures Shared programs are held to the same curricular standards as all programs! Source: © Copyright Iagram by Karn G. Bulsuk (http//www.bulsuk.com) and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
- 11. Administrative Evaluation Processes Periodically review alignment of program goals to partners goals Maintain ongoing program improvement discussions Implement quality assurance process Ensure curricular alignment Track student engagement and outcomes Conduct ongoing operational assessment
- 12. Audience Participation Would you add any other essential features? What other performance indicators would you include? Why? How would you ensure ongoing evaluation and assessment?
- 13. Support Mechanisms Support Mechanisms Shared Program Data Administrative Support Program Communication & Marketing Technology Support Course & Faculty Development
- 14. Support Mechanisms - Shared Program Data Mechanism That Provides: Clear and consistent course labeling/listing Ability for faculty/staff to find information about courses Ability for students to register for courses Source: © Copyright bigbrand (flickr) and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
- 15. Support Mechanisms - Administrative Support Develop clear business practices that help realize the cost savings. Allocate dedicated staff for administration/logistics Account for the cost of course development and revisions Determine course development timeline Ensure an equitable workload model for faculty and staff Consider facility costs. Source: © Copyright Truthout.org (flickr) and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
- 16. Support Mechanisms - Administrative Support Roles Provide centralized support facilitate development Administer Develop a set of common responsibilities for shared program coordinators Source: © Copyright GotCredit (flickr) and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
- 17. Support Mechanisms - Centralized Support Develop: Standard MOU templates and workflows A brand and communication strategy Clearinghouse for program evaluation methods Support the program partners: Operation Discussion Evaluation of Student Program Experience Program Evaluation ROI Analysis Program Identification and tracking Source: © Copyright Kobly (flickr) and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
- 18. Task Force Response: Support Mechanisms - Program Coordinators 1. Develop and manage program course information and schedules 2. Serve as a single point of contact / decision maker 3. Engage in regular communication including curricular alignment across program partners 4. Ensure program support from their campus leadership. 5. Serve as part of the program assessment team. Source: © Copyright Lori Greig (flickr) and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
- 19. Task Force Response Support: Communication and Marketing 1. Develop a plan for how each program will be described to: 1. the public 2. internal Penn State audiences 3. strategic partners 2. Create a website for each program.
- 20. Task Force Response Support: Technology 1. A single support pathway for students and accommodates the varying staffing and resource levels 2. Common set of technology with central support 3. Develop a shared program readiness worksheet to assess the support available and identify gaps
- 21. Task Force Response Support: Course and Faculty Development 1. Customized faculty development path built on the framework provided by World Campus Faculty Development. 2. Access to a regularly offered workshops designed and delivered by central and local instructional designer staff. 3. Opportunity to participate in a design or redesign initiatives with a focus on the broader student experience in a shared program.
- 22. Audience Participation Let’s talk about what is happening with shared programs at your institution.
- 23. Best Practices: Implementation Academic Programs Pick Strong Penn State Academic Programs Choose program leadership and consider the administrative load Identify Registration and Delivery Mechanisms Gaps in data and coding of courses Multiple definitions of shared courses and purposes Varied roles and responsibilities at each campus
- 24. Best Practices: Implementation Identify and Establish Key Stakeholders Academic Program Communities Academic Leaders Students Staff Build Partnerships Across Units Trust Communication Openness
- 25. Best Practices: Strategies for Sharing Campus level coordination of workloads Best mix of courses & program experiences for students Faculty need further exposure to hybrid learning Significant resistance to centralized support services Support under enrolled and unique course offerings Systems and processes are tailored for local needs Define and identify the responsibilities and interfaces between: Campus Academic Officers Program Coordinators Instructional Design and Development Technology Support
- 26. Thank you for participating! Resources available at: bit.ly/PSUSharedPrograms David Stone, dys5266@psu.edu Julie Lang, jel141@psu.edu Jackie Ritzko, jmc14@psu.edu Amy Roche, aer13@psu.edu
- 28. Session Evaluations Contest • Open OLC Conferences Mobile App • Navigate to session to evaluate • Click on "Rate this Session“ • Complete Session Evaluation* (As part of our "green" initiatives, OLC is no longer using paper forms for session evaluations.) *Contact information required for contest entry but will not be shared with the presenters. Winners will be contacted post-conference. Each session evaluation completed (limited to one per session) = one contest entry Five (5) $25 gift cards will be awarded to five (5) individuals Must submit evals using the OLC Conferences mobile app
- 29. Extra Resource - Our Proposal Process Proposal Process 1. Proposal Development with Chief Academic Officers (CAOs) 2. Instructional Delivery Review (Instructional Design and Technology) 3. Proposal Submission 4. Consultation (Academic) 5. Proposal Approval
- 30. Extra Resource - Our Implementation Process Implementation 1. Program Planning (CAOs, Program Coordinators, Professor in Charge) a. Review of roles b. Draft Program Schedule c. Program Kickoff planning 2. Program Kickoff a. Finalize program schedule (2-3 year) b. Course Development planning c. Technology Review d. Program Review Planning e. Disciplinary community discussion (faculty and student) f. Future Meeting planning (Annual program meeting, more frequent meetings of administrators)
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Information from: http://www.psu.edu/academics/campuses University Park: 16 Colleges and Schools Campus Colleges: Penn State Abington Penn State Altoona Penn State Behrend Penn State Berks Penn State Harrisburg Pennsylvania College of Technology (Penn State affiliate) Dickinson Law School (Carlisle) Great Valley (School of Professional Studies) University College: Penn State Beaver Penn State Brandywine Penn State Dubois Penn State Fayette Penn State Greater Allegheny Penn State Hazleton Penn State Lehigh Valley Penn State Mont Alto Penn State New Kensington Penn State Schuylkill Penn State Shenango Penn State Wilkes-Barre Penn State Worthington Scranton Penn State York
- Rationale: Increase curricular breadth at the campuses Improve collaboration and align resources across campuses Provide opportunities for students who wish to remain at a campus or cannot relocate to complete a program at a Campus College or University Park. Create efficiency while enriching the student course choices for students at the campuses. Process: Document review (Program materials, academic policy manuals, etc) Interviews (Faculty, Instructional Designers, Program Managers, etc) Surveys External scan of existing shared programs and related publications
- Charge of task force What are the essential features of a successful shared academic program? What are the key performance indicators that can be used to measure the success of a shared academic program? What are the support mechanisms necessary to run a successful shared academic program?
- Shared programs are aligned with the vision, mission and strategic goals of the partners. These programs are designed to leverage resources to provide seamless, consistent, and efficient student and faculty experiences. Shared programs are cost effective.
- Audience Participation: What are the other shared or collaborative efforts that exist outside of Penn State? How are they defined? Why do these programs exist? Is it because of the uncertainty in Higher education? Technological change? / Why does this approach makes sense given the uncertainty in higher education and in this time of technological change?
- Relies on a robust disciplinary community that values collaboration and cooperation across location; Leverages centrally-supported resources that allow for program-level consistencies in course design and faculty development; Provides resident students a broader range of curricular options and richer experiences as they engage with students and faculty from at least one campus outside of their home campus; Combines online, resident, and hybrid courses into a flexible, cohesive, intentional curriculum developed and delivered by faculty with the support of instructional designers; Capitalizes on faculty expertise, specialized knowledge and research interests to deliver programs; Reduces duplication of efforts and is fiscally responsible; Utilizes innovative communication and interaction technologies for shared courses; Relies on common processes and shared governance.
- Curricular Evaluation Curricular evaluation occurs through accreditation reviews, extended program reviews, annual learning objective reports and other university procedures. Shared programs are held to the same curricular standards as all programs, and include indicators such as the following (as defined in the AAPPM section P-1: New Undergraduate Degrees/Majors, Option, IUGs, and Minors): On-going involvement of a minimum of three or more full-time faculty aligned academically and disciplinarily with the program. These faculty may be located at a single campus, or in the case of shared programs, across multiple campus locations; Program leadership by senior-level faculty; Ability to move student program cohorts through in a timely manner; Availability of a sufficient number of program electives within the discipline and in supporting area of study; University-wide curricular integrity that includes disciplinary community engagement; Ability to minimize the need for core course substitutions and explicit rationale for, and justification of, necessary core substitutions.
- Administrative evaluation Successful shared programs require local coordination and evaluation of program activities by each partner, as well as a broader vision for the program across the partners that comprise the consortium. In order to ensure that shared programs continue to meet the goals developed for the programs it is critical to ensure that ongoing collaboration and communication continues between partners. The following administrative evaluation should be performed in order to support program partners in achieving shared program goals: 1. Periodic review of program goals and the alignment to partner missions and strategic goals. Examples of evidence: Statement of commitment by the chief academic officers from each participating partner; memorandum of understanding between partners; periodic review of the program fit within the context of the partners. 2. Ongoing process for faculty leadership to discuss program improvement and the use of program level data to inform. Examples of evidence: Demonstrated use of data for improvement of the program; changes to courses based on data; surveys and other data collection to determine the state of the program as a whole; use of the data for improvement. 3. A quality assurance process is in place for courses delivered with technology. Examples of evidence: Adoption of the Penn State Quality Assurance e--Learning Design Standards, faculty peer review of teaching, and other faculty peer review. 4. Evidence of ongoing discussion regarding curricular alignment between partners Examples of evidence: Process in place for faculty review of program curriculum and courses; meetings with program faculty at other locations. 5. Student engagement is tracked at the program level and informs improvement Examples of evidence: Student engagement measured via a survey; student portfolios; student research with faculty; student engagement in activities. 6. Student outcomes are tracked and used to inform program. Examples of evidence: Retention and progression rates; student portfolios; student internships; industry advisory boards. 7. Ongoing operational assessment to ensure that business, technical, and other shared administrative processes remain functional and address shared program needs and quality. Examples of evidence: Documented process for resolving incidents, periodic meetings on administrative process needs, incorporation of external and Penn State requirements are incorporated into practices.
- Audience Participation: Would you add any other essential features? What other performance indicators would you include? Why? How would you ensure ongoing evaluation and assessment?
- Shared Program Data In order to effectively share resources, extend course offerings, track progress, and ensure consistent support, clear and relevant information needs to be available to campus and college individuals and departments involved in supporting shared programs. A mechanism which supports the development of clear and consistent course labeling and provides tools for students, faculty, administrators, advisors, registrars and other support staff is necessary. Many of the support coordination issues that were identified in current shared programs can be attributed to a lack of information regarding the availability of shared courses, delivery format, teaching campus, receiving campus as well as timely availability for staff and administrators. Successful collaboration has been due to the development of secondary shared course information tracking (websites, spreadsheets, email, phone calls, and other methods outside of the student information system). These systems, while useful and necessary to support program operation, limit the scale of course sharing and program data collection. Improve and expand the eLearning Cooperative: Create a way to identify courses by course delivery format, term schedule, teaching campus, physical teaching location, receiving campus sites, scheduled meeting times, and special course restrictions (due to special program affiliation or limitations such as regional labs or other location limiting factors). Develop reporting capabilities that allow campus, college, and university administrators to make decisions regarding offering a course at their campus as a single course, or as part of a cooperative agreement or formal shared program. Identify a single point of contact at each campus or college that is responsible for shared academic programs and will also ensure shared course data are accurate for each campus or college. Provide a comprehensive list of shared programs.
- Develop clear business practices that help realize the cost savings provided by operating a shared program. These practices might include: Allocate staff dedicated to administrative support to assist with the logistical coordination of program and course sharing at each location. Include the cost of course development and periodic revisions of those courses, as well as a timeline that provides sufficient time for the course development process. Ensure that there is an equitable workload model for faculty and staff across the locations of a shared program. For example, if a program is shared among campuses the advising load, and teaching loads should be similar for faculty in that shared program. Consider facility costs including building and maintaining specialized spaces such as computer labs and science laboratories, as well as technology costs and periodic updates in the calculation of program costs. Students should have access to the same high quality facilities and resources at each location at which the shared program is offered.
- Provide centralized support to facilitate the development and administration of shared academic programs. To support the addition of new shared programs, the Office of the Vice President for the Commonwealth Campuses created a new position titled Director of Collaborative Programs. This position has many central administration responsibilities. It is recommended that a similar position be established to support University Park colleges wishing to build shared academic programs.
- Provide centralized support to facilitate the development and administration of shared academic programs. Develop standard MOU templates and workflows Develop a brand and communication strategy for shared programs Support the partners in the operation of shared programs Create opportunities for discussion across shared programs Evaluate the overall student program experience Develop a clearinghouse for program evaluation methods Work with campus and program leadership to ensure evaluation Require an analysis of cost versus return on investment Identify and track programs which have been approved for delivery. Entire list for this slide: In support of shared academic programs a central administrator would: Develop standard MOU templates and workflows to guide campuses and colleges in the development of proposals for and the implementation of shared programs. This will be the primary mechanism for establishing clear business processes and functionality for each program including who has responsibility for individual tasks. Develop a brand for shared programs that differentiates the programs from single location campus programs and online programs. Describe how shared programs should be communicated to the public, internal Penn State audiences (advisors, current students, colleges, other campuses, etc), as well as to strategic partners. Ensure that partners in shared programs identify stakeholders who will be responsible for the administrative oversight. Support the partners in the operation of shared programs. Create a timeline and workflow for the development, delivery and evaluation of shared courses. Create opportunities for Program Coordinators to learn about approaches used within other programs in order to further develop methodology for program evaluation. Evaluate the overall program experience for students through common survey instruments and focus groups. Develop a clearinghouse for program evaluation methods used by each of the shared programs to inform new program development and to encourage further development of evaluation processes. Work with campus and program leadership on the development of processes and procedures to ensure evaluation processes are functioning. Require an analysis of cost versus return on investment. Create a mechanism to identify and track programs which have been approved for delivery.
- Develop a set of common responsibilities for shared program coordinators: Develop and manage program course information and schedules Serve as a single point of contact / decision maker Engage in regular communication including curricular alignment across program partners Ensure program support from their campus leadership Serve as part of the program assessment team. Develop a set of common responsibilities for shared program coordinators: While each campus may address the division of administrative responsibility differently, it is critical that common administrative functions are performed by each campus partner. Program Coordinators at the partner campuses have supported the administrative oversight of shared programs in the following ways: Develop and manage program course information and schedules including the Recommended Academic Plan for students within the program. Serve as a single point of contact or well defined decision process for making program decisions that may occur during program operation. For example: course cancellations, course offering issues (change of format, change of instructor, change of semester offered, and other operational issues). Provide ongoing engagement with faculty at other campuses to discuss curricular alignment and the degree program across Penn State. Engage in regular communication across shared program partners to ensure a well-defined vision for the program. Ensure program support from their campus leadership. Serve as part of the program assessment team for the program as a whole across partners.
- Develop a brand for the shared program that differentiates the program from single location campus programs and online programs. A consistent message around a shared programs, for current and prospective students and faculty, is critical as there exists confusion regarding the different programs available to students. Students are not always aware of the differences between programs available via a single campus versus delivered as a shared program. It is critical to provide information to current and prospective students regarding the types of programs that are available. Furthermore, as programs develop special opportunities for student learning, the program features should be emphasized as a differentiating feature provided by Penn State. Programs should develop a plan describing how the program will be described to the public, internal Penn State audiences (advisors, current students, colleges, other campuses, etc), as well as to strategic partners. Create a website that describes the shared program.
- Develop a standard technology support process for all shared programs that provides a single support pathway for students and accommodates the varying staffing and resource levels of the campuses and colleges. In order to achieve this goal we recommend: A single support pathway for students and accommodates the varying staffing and resource levels of the campuses and colleges.common set of technology used in shared programs that will have robust central support to leverage scale and to reinforce local support capabilities. Identify a common set of technology used in shared programs that will have robust central support to leverage scale and to reinforce local support capabilities. Develop a shared program readiness worksheet to assess the support available from participating campuses and identify gaps that will need to be addressed. Information collected would document the classroom, lab and IT infrastructure to be used as part of the program and the instructional design and IT support capacity.
- Shared Program Course and Faculty Development The amount of resources and staffing for support of course design and faculty development varies across colleges and campuses. In addition, central support units such as the Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence, Teaching and Learning with Technology, and the World Campus, contribute to the support model. Identifying gaps, capitalizing on existing resources and empowering faculty are essential to support the goals of shared programs. Implement a model for program, course and faculty development that is scalable and provides faculty with the resources and support for designing and developing courses for shared programs. Provide faculty who teach shared courses with access to a customized development path built on the framework provided by World Campus Faculty Development. This would include an introduction to shared programs course that parallels the OL 1000 Introduction to the World Campus. Provide faculty who teach shared courses with access to a regularly offered seminar series designed and delivered by central and local instructional designer staff. This 5-module series would provide faculty with time and resources to begin the design of a course for a shared program. Provide faculty with the opportunity to participate in a design or redesign initiative supported by TLT with a focus on the broader student experience in a shared program.
- Audience Participation: Shared Program Data How do you encourage the strategic use of courses at your institution? Audience Participation: Administrative Support Do you track and measure costs associated with academic program operations? What processes and documents have you developed for consortia delivery? Audience Participation: Communication and Marketing What are the key selling points for students? What are the key selling points for faculty? Audience Participation: Technology What have been your successful strategies to encourage and support the use of standard technologies and support processes across organizational units? Audience Participation: Course & Faculty Development How should faculty professional development for shared academic programs differ from “traditional” online course faculty development? What are the key outcomes that should be explicit in the program?
- Campus level coordination of workloads Best mix of courses and program experiences for students Faculty need further exposure to hybrid learning in order to comfortably participate in new program or course delivery methods. Significant resistance to centralized support services Support under enrolled and unique course offerings Systems and processes are typically organized and optimized for local needs. Define and identify the responsibilities and interfaces between: Campus Academic Officers Program Coordinators Instructional Design and Development Technology Support