D2L Fusion - Memphis 2008


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

D2L Fusion - Memphis 2008

  1. 1. Implementation of an D2L Course Template across an Entire State System<br />Gary Storts<br />Tennessee Board of Regents<br />
  2. 2. The governing body for the Public Colleges and Universities of Tennessee<br />47 Institutions<br />180,000 Students<br />Tennessee Board of Regents <br />
  3. 3. A state-wide collaborative online program across all 47 institutions within the state.<br />Started in 2001<br />More than 400 different courses.<br />Offering more than 800 sections<br />Enrollments of more than 15,000<br />Regents Online Degree Program <br />
  4. 4. Course Proposals are initiated by faculty from across the system.<br />Courses being developed have already been approved at the institution developing the course.<br />Proposal goes through an RODP Curriculum Committee & Subcommittee<br />Course Approved<br />How Does it Work?<br />
  5. 5. Course Syllabus is approved by an RODP Curriculum Committee<br />Course must fit an approved design template<br />All sections are taught from the same copy of the course.<br />How Does it Work?<br />
  6. 6. RODP & D2L Training Required<br />Course Template provided to Instructor<br />Course must pass RODP Quality Review<br />How Does it Work?<br />
  7. 7. Course put into inventory and offered through all institution’s registration systems<br />Developing Institution guaranteed the first 6 sections being taught.<br />How Does it Work?<br />
  8. 8. Students must be accepted to a TBR institution through normal process.<br />Students choose a Home Institution<br />Enroll through Home Institution, regardless of where course is being taught from.<br />Home Institution grants degree or certificate<br />Students Enrolling<br />
  9. 9. Sections show up as one RODP section in Registration software.<br />Designated with an “R” ie, R-50<br />All students are placed into one enrollment section.<br />Students are broken into multiple sections just before the beginning of semester<br />Limited to 25 students per section.<br />Enrollment Process<br />
  10. 10. Developing Institution paid $6,000<br />Developing Institution guaranteed the first 6 sections being taught.<br />Teaching Institution receives Tuition<br />Students Home School receives FTE<br />Teaching Institution receives 30% of RODP course fee.<br />Financial Aspects<br />
  11. 11. The RODP led to a common calendar across all colleges and universities in the system.<br />Interesting Outcome<br />
  12. 12. Courses are filled with students from different schools, taught by different faculty from different schools<br />Created a need for consistency of design and content across all sections<br />Need for a Template<br />
  13. 13. WebCT<br />Template consisted of specific tools and color design.<br />Faculty not restricted in the presentation of their content<br />Where did we start?<br />
  14. 14. WebCT contract expiring in Dec of 2007<br />Statewide RFP for a Course Management <br />Three CMS’s considered<br /> Angel<br /> Blackboard/WebCT<br /> Desire2Learn<br />Desire2Learn<br />
  15. 15. Conversion of WebCT Content required considerable reworking of content into D2L<br />State had been looking at the Quality Matter Initiative<br />Desire2Learn Opportunity<br />
  16. 16. A peer-based review process of online courses that focuses on the design of courses, as it relates to the success of students.<br />Has an extensive 40 point rubric for the evaluation tool.<br />Supported by academic research in the area of online education.<br />Quality Matters<br />
  17. 17. Quality Matters<br />www.qualitymatters.org<br />
  18. 18. Quality Matters Model<br /> $250 for Lead Reviewer<br /> $150 for two (2) additional Reviewers<br /> $550 per course to Review<br />$550 x 400 = $220,000 over 3 years.<br />QM was too expensive!<br />
  19. 19. Conrad (2002) found that learners judge instructors … on how clearly online course materials present the details of the course. A well organized course with a clear overview … clear timeline…<br />Swan (2001 cited clear and consistent course structure as one of three factors which “contribute significantly to the success of asynchronous online courses.”<br />Quality Matters Research<br />
  20. 20. Navigational instructions make the organization of the course easy to understand. <br />Lanicki and Liegle (2001); Swan (2001); Shriathudding, Hassan & Landoni (2003)<br />Quality Matters Research<br />
  21. 21. There is a statement introducing the content to the course and how student learning is structured. <br />A self-introduction by the instructor is appropriate<br />Students should understand what it is that they are about to learn.<br />Quality Matters Research<br />
  22. 22. Required Elements<br />Course Information<br />Course Description<br />Welcome<br />Calendar list all course due dates<br />Grade book complete<br />Grade book linked to assessments<br />Instructions<br />Getting Started Module<br />Content in Sample Module Format<br />Use of the title “Module<br />Multiple forms of Assessment<br />Dropbox linked to gradebook.<br />Quiz dates in quiz tool<br />
  23. 23. Getting Started Module<br />
  24. 24. Overview<br />Learning Objectives<br />Key Words and Terms<br />Content<br />Assessments<br />Additional Resources<br />Reflection/Summary<br />The RODP Sample Module<br />
  25. 25. Getting Started Module<br />
  26. 26. Allowed us to separate content (academic freedom) from course design.<br />RODP Template<br />
  27. 27. Gary Storts<br />gary.storts@tbr.edu<br />(615) 366-3938<br />Questions?<br />