CoB Turning Phoenix - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 3, 2005

RE: CoB Turning Phoenix

Date: Nov 3, 2005

I know that other folks are having a higher order discussion about this issue. I'm personally mired in the details like hoping no one picks his nose on camera.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Virtual Bull$hit wrote:

Low Culture wrote: I really can't wait for this whole College --- what we know now as the CoB --- goes completely online with video taped lectures and some enterprising kid somewhere Napsterizes the whole thing and people halfway across the world somewhere make a fortune off of the pirated lectures. That will be hilarious. Since MIT makes much of its courses and teaching materials available online for free I doubt there will be much of a black market for USM materials. If I understand what has been proposed for the COB it really isn't anything new. Don't many other universities already offer a similar approach? Frankly, if I were going to "Napsterize" somebody I would probably chose at least a tier III university!

I'm pretty sure LC was speaking in jest. That's the way I took it.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Social Grooming wrote:

I know that other folks are having a higher order discussion about this issue. I'm personally mired in the details like hoping no one picks his nose on camera.

You have belittled a very important discussion. You may think your comment is funny but it' snot.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Virtual Bull$hit is simply playing the distraction game, a game at which Doty excels. He spouts unfounded claims and, when faced with cold hard facts that are contrary to his original statement, proceeds to change the subject. Are we sure that Virtual Bull$hit really isn't Doty or his wife? Perhaps one of Doty's few remaining supporters in the CoB?

One poster made the point that the pro-onliners have the burden of proof, since face-to-face instruction has centuries of support for its effectiveness. It seems that Doty subscribes to the "might makes right" philosophy, just like his almost-Doppelganger twin Shelby.

Onliners want to make money. Once they have a management prof's lecture taped, they can replay it over and over using fewer support faculty, if we are to believe that USM would "own" the prof's lectures and images. Fewer support faculty means that the profit margin gets bigger. Want to bet who gets that profit?

MIT does make most of its course materials available online for free. The implicit statement there is that the value of an MIT education is in the classroom instruction/discussion AND interaction with other students. Doty's online MBA has neither. Watching a taped lecture is not a substitute for attending a real class and taking part in discussion, and there is no guarantee that there will be "classmates" with which to interact.

Face-to-face delivery will always dominate online because of online's lack of human interaction, thoughtful discussion, and challenging argument. No chat room can replicate those dynamics.

Further, no one has addressed the issue of differentiating the online MBA from the face-to-face MBA. Doty plans to make them the same. I want Virtual Bull$hit or whomever to defend that boneheaded decision.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

--- wrote:

where was all of this consternation when world lit (ENG 203) was made an online course? what about composition 102 (ENG 102)? technical writing (ENG 333)? maybe some need to check out what we already offer online.

For a really interesting foreshadowing of the discussion raised on this thread, you might consider checking out the faculty senate minutes.....for March 19, 1999.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

The University of Southern Mississippi
Faculty Senate Minutes
March 19, 1999

FORUM: Sue Pace, Continuing Education Programming, and Sandy McGowan, Distance Learning Instructional Design Manager.
Sue Pace: Teaching an online course is an option for a faculty member at USM It is also an option for a student to take such a course. Students also have the option of taking such courses from classrooms, homes, or work sites on their lunch hours. All online courses at USM are existing courses that have been reconfigured into an online format. All have been approved by the IHL and the Southern Regional Electronic Campus, a unit of the Southern Regional Education Board, which monitors courses for 18 states. At USM the academic department receives all student credit hours generated for online courses. No out of state tuition is charged for these courses; many of these students will never come to this campus. After much study last fall, Continuing Education, in cooperation with the Office of Technology Resources, purchased WEBCT for use in these online courses. WEBCT has a template that makes it easy for you to take your existing course and reconfigure it for online. We've had both intensive and overview training session for faculty and will do additional training sessions this summer and next fall. Sandy McGowan and Carole Bullock work one on one with faculty members to teach them to use this software. We now have a distance learning server that archives all online courses.
Sandy McGowan: WEBCT provides brochures and if you come to see them about the software, you will be provided with one which describes the software and the tools that are available. These tools can provide things like chat, newsgroups, bulletin boards, email, and change of password capabilities. The software is password protected so that those who don't belong in the class can't get in. The professor is given the class roster which the professor enters into the software and emails the students their passwords.
Question (Lillian Range): Do you meet at a certain time?
Sandy McGowan: It depends on how you design the course. Some like to have a chat format and others like to have a bulletin board. For example, you might schedule 2 to 3 o'clock on a certain day for a chat, so that is when the course meets. The rest of the time might be up to the student to read the material and to get the assignments done. Assignments are sent to the professor by email. Bulletin boards can be set up for asynchronous communication. You can also choose to meet face to face. The question of exams often comes up--how you make sure that whoever is taking the course is also taking the exams. Sometimes you have this same problem with very large on-campus classes. You can design your course so that you don't have a traditional exam, or you may choose to have a traditional exam at a test site where students will take the test under supervision.
Sue Pace: This software gives you a great deal of control. You can determine how many times the student has accessed the software or how many times they have posted to a bulletin board.
Alexandra Jaffe: Are students and faculty in these courses dialing into a separate modem pool? If not, this type of course isn't possible when faculty can't get online.
McGowan: Yes, this is a problem, but we are hoping that as the network becomes more robust, this problem will go away.
Alexandra Jaffe: Can we look at some existing courses that are already online to get an idea of what they look like?
McGowan: Yes. WEBCT has a web site that you can visit: www.webct.com
Shahdad Nagshpour: What support do you give for equipment?
McGowan: The Office of Technology Resources supports the server; your department would supply your pc. There is a computer loan program for facutly through OTR. If you are completely without resources, you might talk to them. Any faculty member can get an account for an online course and it can be in a hidden area in the software until you get your course figured out. If you want to practice or try one out, we can give you an account and walk you through the software. There are tutorials that will allow you to go through it at your pace. Some faculty are using the software to put parts of their regular courses online.
Art Kaul: How is the integrity of the online courses monitored?
Pace: I asked one of the SACS board members about the issue of the number of minutes required for a course by IHL. We are not concerned about the minutes of instruction; we are concerned that these courses provide the same academic content and quality as in the classroom setting. The faculty member, the department head, and the dean monitor the quality.
Art Kaul: But, how do you monitor the quality? Normally courses that are modified have to be approved.
Pace: The course has not been changed; the presentation has been reconfigured.
Bob Smith: When I began teaching my online course, I gave Continuing Education a syllabus. The course I am teaching is one I've taught for a long time. I was initially concerned that any course I taught was being offered by my department and not by Continuing Education.
Question (Art Kaul): Shouldn't these courses be approved by Academic Council? It seems that we are in danger of having two types of courses--some that are being approved by Academic Council and some that are not.
McGowan: Do IVN courses have to be approved by Academic Council? No. This is very similar.
Michael Dearmey: This entire matter of online teaching needs to be removed from Continuing Education and OTR and the Academic Council needs to study the factors relating to these courses. Is this an assault on the professoriate? How do you know the person is not cheating or is participating? What about monetary compensation for these classes? Why should I go to the trouble of doing this beyond my normal teaching load when there is no additional compensation coming to me for this? You don't even know who it is that you are talking to in those chat rooms. I don't allow my students to use web sites. Academic Council should review every bit of the curriculum. I do not think this is good educational practice.
Sue Pace: These courses are optional for the faculty member. They have been approved by Academic Council.
Michael Dearmey: That is not true. The course that has been approved is not the same as the online course.
Bob Smith: The course that I teach has been approved and I teach it the same way as the course I teach in the classroom.
Michael Dearmey: That is because you are a level-headed guy.
Bob Smith: I think we need to take into account and document our competence in these courses.
Mary Lux: I'm on Academic Council and we have been concerned about this. Last year there was nothing to look at and all of a sudden this year all these courses exist and we've not been able to study them.
Sandy McGowan: I think there needs to be an open discussion.
Bill Powell: Once the course has been developed, taught, and archived, who retains the right of use?
Sue Pace: The faculty member.
Alexandra Jaffe: Do we ask for additional documentation in Academic Council for overseas study tours or for compressed classes?
Mary Lux: You can modify your own course. After we've passed the course in Academic Council, there is no further verification or assurance that the syllabus is followed. Unless you change the number of the course, it is not monitored.
Shahdad Naghshpour: Why are we doing this? Other universities that have really gone online are regretting it.
Sue Pace: I have a comparative analysis of 355 studies which shows no significant difference in the quality of the online course from that in the classroom (emphasis added). Students from many states enroll in these courses; they have access to courses from many different universities and they choose to take them from us.
Sandy McGowan: Technology allows us to put these things out for the world, but it is our responsibility to ensure that we are putting out a quality product.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

yes--i'm familiar with the 355 studies issue. here's a link to a website for that material.

http://nosignificantdifference.org/

Date: Nov 5, 2005

--- wrote:

yes--i'm familiar with the 355 studies issue. here's a link to a website for that material.
http://nosignificantdifference.org/

This study is just as useless as the Wal-Mart funded study that recently showed that Wal-Mart is a good corporate citizen.

No one who supports online education has given one good reason why USM should duplicate an online program that exists through MSU currently.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

Down with the duplication of all "programs of study" offered elsewhere.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

589 Resident wrote:

This study is just as useless as the Wal-Mart funded study that recently showed that Wal-Mart is a good corporate citizen.

Damn straight! There is no way anyone can trust a study conducted by a scholar from a low quality university that does online education like NC State. What is even more suspect is that some of the studies included on the site were published in TEACHING journals rather than in research journals. Worse still is that one of the studies included on the site uses meta anlaysis to demonstate that across 15,000 students online education might actually work better than traditional classes. These people should be burned at the stake! Since we don't like the results these studies cannot be valid!

Date: Nov 5, 2005

First and Only wrote:

Down with the duplication of all "programs of study" offered elsewhere.

No! The On-line program is available everywhere in Mississippi. Duplication of face-to-face programs IS necessary to reach all citizens with quality education. If program duplication occurred in the same location you would have the analogy of duplication of On-line programs.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

The criterion measure is course grade in many of these studies??? Are the course evaluation methods the same? Is the author of many of these studies the course instructor? I'm not sure about the validity of the outcome measure in many of these studies. I know for a fact that, for various reasons, some instructors water down the online courses...esecially the evalution methods. One would have to carefully evaluate the methodology of these studies in order to be to interpret the results

Date: Nov 5, 2005

I guess it's fair to say at this point that many posters are indeed against on-line courses per se; oh well, it must be an anti-trust concept after all.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

Rule of Reason wrote:

I guess it's fair to say at this point that many posters are indeed against on-line courses per se; oh well, it must be an anti-trust concept after all.

No...it's direct experience.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

Can someone explain to me how two lectures a week before 200 students in Stout Hall with no TA's is a more effective learning environment than an online course?

Date: Nov 6, 2005

Reviewer,

The website that was referenced is hardly unbiased; it is dedicated to pushing for and supporting online "education," thus the basis for my comment. I guess you must have missed the online module that taught inference in your digital degree program.

Date: Nov 6, 2005

qwerty wrote:

Can someone explain to me how two lectures a week before 200 students in Stout Hall with no TA's is a more effective learning environment than an online course?

You can't ----

And that is actually the greater point. We keep talking about providing "quality" but we don't really seem to have a good definition of what we mean by that anywhere I can see. It seems to me that "quality" would provide that if for some reason we had to teach large lecture courses (as opposed to the small ones taught at smaller liberal arts institutions) that there would be something else given in exchnage for being in a course with three times as many students taught by a grad student or adjunct who is working with little or no TA help. Clearly the small format classroom is going to give students a greater opportunity for direct interaction with the professor -- clearly they are going to be in a situation where their questions and concerns are more likely to be noticed and their difficulties allowed to surface and become visible. So what --- beyond servicing a greater number of students for a lower cost -- is the QUALITATIVE exchange? What do students get in for not having smaller, more personal classes?

I think the answer is clear. Nothing. (well, that is somewhat untrue -- they may actually get a wider variety of class choices than at a smaller school . . . . ). What they get is an opportunity for some kind of education that most of them would not otherwise be able to obtain at a smaller institution by reason of financial inability or academic inadequacy.

I think this is fine -- it is what a public university must provide at the most basic level -- an opportunity for every student who wants it. But that is not quality. Quality is providing more than the base line and that needs to be defined better than we currently do.

On the other hand -- I think the bottom line here is that defining the quality of learning will also mean defining the quality of teaching and research. Defining the quality of teaching means evaluating quality among the faculty.

Again, that is fine with me.

But quality of teaching is also a product of the envronment a university provides its students, the resources it provides students and faculty. Those are the elements that define quality among administrators.

You cannot speak of quality of learning without also speaking of quality as it relates to the running of the university.

But I have never seen any standards or benchmarks applied to administrators. Their value is always defined AFTER THE FACT, as far as I can see. This means the job they do is never defined in terms of goals put forward and then achieved . . . . but rather are defined by retrospective identification of what are frequently extremely ambiguous actions in which the actual role of the administrator in achieving a speficic result is often very unclear to the uninitiated. Why is it that the only people who seem to have specific qualitative evaluations are faculty and staff? Why is it that evaluation from the top down counts for or against the staff or faculty member, but evaluation from the bottom up, when it happens, seems to have little or no effect in determining how upper level administrators either learn to do their job better or are awarded for the job they have done? Why is it I don't know what benchmarks have been set for our Provost -- presumably a Provost's bench marks will affect what I, my department, and my college do?

Date: Nov 6, 2005

stephen--in your comments about evaluating administrators, do you include chairs?

Date: Nov 7, 2005

qwerty wrote:

Can someone explain to me how two lectures a week before 200 students in Stout Hall with no TA's is a more effective learning environment than an online course?

Here's an explanation.

Say you're teaching one of those 200-seat lecture courses with no TA. Let's say that the lecture is well-prepared and organized. You present an example to the class and look at their faces for feedback. They look confused. You now have the opportunity to clarify this point BEFORE moving on. Students have an opportunity to ask their questions ON THE SPOT. The problematic issue can be resolved at that time and in that moment, again BEFORE another concept or issue is introduced. Notice here that while some may say that students feel marginalized in large courses, it is incumbent on the instructor to gauge student learning by "feel." Failure to do this is irresponsible. Also, it requires students to actively take part in their education once the instructor has opened the door for clarification.

Now, let's say that you're teaching the exact course online. Your lecture notes are available online. Students have access to all course materials. Even your lecture is digitally recorded and available. While watching the video, a student has a question. To whom do they address their question? There is no instructor in front of them who may be asked. There are no fellow students around. The student must send an email, post a message on a bulletin board, or start a chat in a chat room to get that clarification. There will be a lag in the answer coming back. More importantly, the instructor has little opportunity to get real-time feedback about student comprehension.

By the way, there is a plethora of research that shows that class size does not affect student learning in many disciplines.

Online courses are the new correspondence courses. They pale in comparison to real-time, face-to-face courses.

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Was there a new COB e-mail? I heard a new one came out saying the program was well underway. Will someone post it?

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Hi all

Late yesterday afternoon I met with an ad hoc committee including representatives from the faculty, staff, Itech, and the LEC. During this meeting I accepted the committee recommendation for the technology application package we will be using to pilot Digital MBA courses. I approved the purchase of the necessary software and hardware to convert JGH300 to the first DBMA classroom.

The system has many positive features, and clearly was the best choice for the initial startup. The package will support two types of video enhancement for online courses. In the simplest case, the instructor can simply record the entire duration of a face to face class and make this video available to online students. Additionally, the instructor may choice to produce a number of shorter video clips to supplement the online offering. The instructor may also use some combination of these two approaches. Further, the instructor could use some of the video clips in the traditional face to face setting. This has some interesting potential for guest lectures, special speakers, etc.

There are two important limitations to the technology we adopted. First, as I had already suggested, we will not have the capability for real time broadcasting. Second, the initial software will not allow us to edit the video segments. I do not think these are serious limitations in the initial phase of the project. I believe that the potential for using this approach to overcome our need to offer many small 500 level MBA courses at multiple locations is a superior solution to requiring a single faculty member to travel to the multiple sites to cover a single course. As the project expands, however, we may need to overcome these limitations, especially the inability to edit the video. I was assured by the committee that while incorporating the ability to edit the video might require a change in processing software the change would have little if any impact on the system users.

I also asked Sheri Rawls from the LEC if she thought other colleges might be interested in experimenting with our technology in their online programs. She believes there is already strong demand for this technology and many instructors in other colleges will be very interested in using our facility. As a consequence of this, I asked her to invite four other instructors, one from each of the other colleges, to experiment with our capability. We can also make this capability available to some of our faculty already teaching online undergraduate courses.

hd

Date: Nov 7, 2005

No one knows anyone from faculty/staff who was on the ad hoc committee. Best anyone can tell is that the ad hoc committee was formed in the hallway before the meeting and vote.

Everyone, notice that the plan is going forward WITHOUT consent of the faculty in the COB. UNbelievable!

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Can somebody count the number of "I"s in that memo? My count was nine, but I may have missed one...mainly because Doty seems to be spending a lot of money on a program that has had exactly zero faculty votes for it.

Date: Nov 7, 2005

No one in the CoB is really worried about people "Napsterizing" their lectures.

What they are worried about, however, is an administrator using taped lectures to support a course without proper input from the faculty member on camera. Without the consent of the faculty member. Using the faculty member's image after (s)he has left for another job. Without compensating the faculty member for using his or her image.

Doty's angling to save his job again, and Grimes told him to do this. Doty's going to do it without faculty votes, without meaningful faculty input, and without following proper channels. Where is all of his academic freedom/shared governance/etc., talk now? He told his faculty that their opinion of this program didn't matter.

Date: Nov 7, 2005

This memo, and his actions surrounding implementation of the program, offer a good indication of the kind of Dean he is. Faculty governance is fine only when it suits his needs. Remember this next time he tries to win you over.

Date: Nov 8, 2005

The CoB should call for Doty's resignation immediately. It's obvious we don't have a real dean. We can have a digital dean and that should be adequate. Go to the recording booth, we'll play you back whenever we want a good laugh.

USM has very few resources, our best faculty walk when possible, and they are throwing money and time into this, as the value of a USM business degree is likely at an all time low? Maybe Doty is a visionary, he realizes that soon no one will be left to teach classes except electronic ghosts haunting JGH. I also think the new HVAC system is to keep these computers cool and therefore functional.

I will be handing out "Digitize the Deans" stickers today at the HUB. Get yours as soon as possible. Supplies limited to the first 10,000 disgruntled USMers.

Date: Nov 8, 2005

Here you go... wrote:

Late yesterday afternoon I met with an ad hoc committee including representatives from the faculty, staff, Itech, and the LEC. During this meeting I accepted the committee recommendation for the technology application package we will be using to pilot Digital MBA courses. I approved the purchase of the necessary software and hardware to convert JGH300 to the first DBMA classroom.

Who was on that ad hoc committee? Has this been revealed?

Date: Nov 8, 2005

hpbdd wrote:

Here you go... wrote: Late yesterday afternoon I met with an ad hoc committee including representatives from the faculty, staff, Itech, and the LEC. During this meeting I accepted the committee recommendation for the technology application package we will be using to pilot Digital MBA courses. I approved the purchase of the necessary software and hardware to convert JGH300 to the first DBMA classroom. Who was on that ad hoc committee? Has this been revealed?

Everyone would like to know. I wonder why this was not revealed in the communique.

Date: Nov 8, 2005

hpbdd wrote:

Here you go... wrote: Late yesterday afternoon I met with an ad hoc committee including representatives from the faculty, staff, Itech, and the LEC. During this meeting I accepted the committee recommendation for the technology application package we will be using to pilot Digital MBA courses. I approved the purchase of the necessary software and hardware to convert JGH300 to the first DBMA classroom. Who was on that ad hoc committee? Has this been revealed?

We first identified those faculty, staff, iTech and LEC members who are pro-online MBA...we then filled in with those who kiss up to Doty and would vote as he told them.