A pressing issue is that an insufficient number of G-Strand courses (Sciences - Physical, Biological and Computer) are being offered (whether in online, face-to-face, or alternative formats) to meet the needs of SOU students who must take at least three courses in this strand. (See G-strand eligible courses.) In addition, two of the three Strand G courses must include a lab. Only four of 33 G-strand courses are online, and only two of these are lab courses. As a consequence, many students in our online degree completion programs have difficulty finding a G-strand course, and this may delay their degree completion. (Note: Only one G-strand course has been offered in hybrid format.) Face-to-face students also have fewer choices of sections available because fewer are being offered as class sizes are increased, and this leads to scheduling challenges.

Recommendation: Determine student needs for G-strand courses to support degree completion. Pilot courses in online and alternative formats that can meet these needs, and provide faculty development and support for pilots.

Phase 1: Identify student and programmatic needs for courses meeting G, H, I and J strands; focus on G strand through Spring 2016

1. Identify current G courses that have been offered online at other OUS colleges and community colleges over the past two years and research their approach (and identify as alternatives for SOU online students).
2. Determine SOU student (and programmatic) needs for G-strand courses over the next two years.
3. Once needs for G (H, I and J strand) courses have been determined, identify specific courses that would fulfill those needs for degree completion (for fully online and “hybrid” students - those who take a combination of online and face-to-face courses and live more than 50 and less than 100 miles away from SOU) and identify those courses which would be easiest to convert to online or alternative format.

Phase 2: Design and conduct one or more research projects to:

1. Evaluate options for providing G-strand lab science courses
   • Flipped, hybrid format as one step on pathway to conversion online
   • Fully online format for lab course
   • Intensive lab sessions on SOU campus (or at field site) over summer, in evening, and/or on weekends
   • Hybrid format where some class meetings are replaced by a combination of:
     • asynchronous learning activities supported by learning management system (Moodle)
     • limited number of face-to-face meetings at SOU (weekends, evenings) or at field sites (for hands-on activities as necessary) AND/OR
     • real-time, interactive sessions at satellite locations (community college, etc.).
2. Identify the design parameters and course needs online or in alternative formats (weekend labs)
3. Design an online G-strand course/lab
4. Test-teach it for two terms, collecting extensive data about results of design as well as delivery practices, and modifying the delivery practices during the course, and the course design between the two test instances. Course size (and possible use of resources such as facilitators*) and other approaches to scaling up would be part of the delivery practices tested and evaluated.
5. Conduct an overall in-depth assessment and evaluation process, including analysis of student engagement, persistence, success, feedback on course design, as well as faculty experience before we embark on a more extensive offerings of online G-strand courses.

This is to be designed as a rigorous research project, with an IRB and formal research protocols (CIS would work with Director of Institutional Assessment, Kristin Nagy Catz, to do the research project design). The Division Directors and chairs of the online degree completion programs are being consulted as to which courses would be good test cases (and faculty who are willing and able to teach them).

Phase 3: Develop faculty expertise.

1. Identify faculty currently teaching G, H, I and J courses online or in alternative formats and recruit as champions.
2. Identify potential faculty and teaching partners (MAT students) for classes identified in Phase 1.
3. Identify and develop opportunities for online teaching and learning experiences for instructors who will teach the courses identified in Phase 3 below.

The teams recommended that the following issues be explored further:

Should SOU be a one-stop shop?

• Is it possible/desirable to steer students to take this coursework elsewhere when needed (“can we be all things to all people”)?
• Should we be providing resources for students to identify other options elsewhere (articulation guides are not user friendly; DegreeWorks doesn’t support)
• If we refer students to other universities to take these courses, is that an invitation not to come back? Is there data about students lost this way?
• What are the consequences for students (more complexity with financial aid, multiple email and LMS platforms to use, etc.) and what impact does that have on their degree completion?
• From a marketing standpoint, does this weaken our position in the market (making our online programs partial products, rather than whole products)?

Are there other customers for online lab science courses?

• Regional high school students need college-level science courses, but lack labs.

Has SOU made a formal commitment to providing fully online programs?

• Has SOU (including the Faculty Senate) made an institutional commitment to fully online programs ?
• Should there be fully online students?
• Should every course be put online (maybe not every course can be, and not every course that can be, should be)?

There is a disconnect between what faculty think is good service and what students expect from their instructors. As a consequence, students who need to take online courses in order to complete their degree in a timely manner may avoid them because they have had a negative experience with an online course, and faculty may avoid them for the same reason.

Recommendation: Define and communicate reasonable expectations (for institution, faculty and students) regarding online courses. This does not require everyone to teach the same way, but expectation management contributes to a positive experience for all.

Phase 1: Address the disconnect between what faculty think is good service and what students expect by defining reasonable expectations regarding online courses.

• Student expectations of the instructor
• Instructor expectations of the student
• What an online student can expect of the institution

Process

1. Research literature.
2. Find examples from other universities.
3. Review existing student surveys.
4. Hold focus groups for students.
5. Conduct interviews with chairs and Division Directors.
6. Present (30 minutes) at departmental meetings for current online degree completion programs.
7. Conduct online instructor surveys issued by department chairs (especially to adjunct faculty).
8. Distribute student surveys in online courses.

Phase 2: Communicate reasonable expectations regarding online courses.

1. Set up small task force to review results of Phase 1.
2. Task force develops outline for online instructor guidelines and online student handbook* (first section in each would concentrate on reasonable expectations).
3. Based on results of Phase 1, draft Section 1 of online instructor guidelines and online student handbook.
4. Test Section 1 with faculty and students to determine support necessary to meet expectations.
5. Develop support resources.
6. Refine existing web page(s) for online students to include section on reasonable expectations.

*Note: There is a draft for an online handbook that might be a good starting point. One resource might include some suggested pathways for instructors with existing courses, to provide an incremental approach to improvement.