XplanaZine

Over the last few years, two different approaches to course development and management have emerged. I don’t want to give the impression that these are the “last word” on these two philosophies, but the observations I’ve gathered are food for thought, as well as a point of departure. Later in this article, I’ll go over what I’ve noticed are key elements in successful program development (building on a previous article). Keep in mind that the situation is different for every institution and unit — but, a few common concerns unite all of us. That’s a scary realization, particularly considering how easily we become defensive, pompous, know-it-all-ish, and frustrated. But, why focus on the negative? In general, teams and individuals work very well together, and if online courses and programs are viewed as a great opportunity for growth and security, all the better.

Faculty-led online course development. In this model, the faculty member is responsible for developing the content for the course, as well as the components that are loaded into course management software. The faculty member begins by developing his or her own course, often adapted from one taught on-site in a traditional classroom. The professor develops instructional materials: typically a syllabus, lecture notes, required work and samples of successful student papers. Discussion boards, announcements, automated assessments (quizzes, etc.), collaborative activities, gradebooks, and class resources are then configured within the course management software platform, usually WebCT or Blackboard.

Pro’s: The faculty member can control the content and constantly update, upgrade, and adjust the course and course content. Because control is kept at faculty-level, the documents are likely to be updated more often, and there would be less chance of critical errors.

Con’s: This is enormously time-consuming and it requires the faculty member to keep up-to-date with software programs and interfaces. It is difficulty for a faculty member to build and maintain many such courses. Even with a large amount of technical and instructional design support, many faculty members will not be able to develop more than one or two courses. It would be used only by the faculty member who developed it, and thus it would be deployed in one section per semester.

Department- or institution-led online course development. This approach is used by the University of Phoenix, as well as other large distance universities having multiple sections of a single course. They may also employ a large number of adjuncts or short-term contract instructors. Basically, the department assembles a course development team, which may consist of subject matter experts, instructional designers, editors, programmers, graphics specialists, instructional technologists, and team leaders. The team develops a course which includes all the facilitated e-learning elements in the faculty-led course design, but in addition, may incorporate streaming media clips, audio, additional articles, graphics, which can be purchased or licensed for use by the institution.

Once developed, the course is updated on a regular basis. It can take the form of a course content website, or be saved as a Blackboard (or WebCT) cartridge to be accessed by all the instructors of each section of the course. It can be used for several years, and for hundreds of sections per semester.

Pro’s: Although the development costs may be high, the long-run cost-effectiveness of this model is impressive, particularly if there are multiple sections and it can be offered for two or three years. The course content is consistent, and the department can be assured that all the students taking the course are receiving the same content, and the same mode of delivery.

Con’s: Because the instructors of the course did not develop the course, it is very important to require the faculty to attend training, and to understand precisely how they are expected to interact and guide students. The initial development costs can be high, and it is necessary to develop a standard procedure for course development, as well as standard course templates for uniform structure. Because of the standardization, there is a very real danger of approaching a “course in a box” trap, and not offer enough meaningful collaborative activities for the truly individualized instruction to take place. This is particularly the case if the video and course content are “on-demand” and there is very little discussion board activity, and it is not possible to e-mail the instructor.

Course videos, morphed into streaming Powerpoint presentations: It is worth mentioning that some department-led course development initiatives evolved from telecourses, which were course videos that broadcast on closed circuit television, taped and mailed to students, or broadcast on public education television channels, in distance education programs. The online educational product that resulted in these cases is often either a series of video presentations streamed over the Internet. This is often synched with a Powerpoint presentation, with a line on the bottom that allows Instant Messaging.

Pro’s: The course content is very consistent, and there are demonstrations and activities that seem to replicate the classroom experience (or at least the appearance of one, albeit a bit voyeuristic). When the video is streamed, it utilizes the capabilities of the Internet, and allows students to feel as though they are connected to a real person. Video clips, demo’s, and clips from films and documentaries can be woven through the video to provide excellent course material.

Con’s: Fiendishly expensive development costs, combined with intense bandwidth requirements, fast connection speeds, and latest-model computers make this a potentially unworkable solution, where students spend much of their time trying to get connected, or trying to understand why they can’t access the streaming media. Instructional designers argue that this method does not inspire active learning – the student can, if they wish, remain passive.

On-time Product Delivery. Although the need to have courses, course management systems, and online services up and running by launch date, may seem self-evident, it is much more difficult to achieve than one might think. The primary challenge is the sheer complexity of the task. It is necessary to manage people and tasks who are geographically, technically, and philosophically from quite different tasks. Further, it is necessary to constantly modify the product to meet the needs of the users; and thus it must be of prime importance to maintain a market / needs-oriented approach, rather than one based on convenience of delivery. Primary components include:

–Smoothly coordinated team.
–Vertical and horizontal integration to assure maximum flexibility and responsiveness.
–Timely reports updated regularly with respect to market needs.
–Engineered product that is designed for the entire spectrum of access/deliverability issues (fast connections, slow connections, low band-width, course management software such as Blackboard or WebCT, CD-ROM, etc.).

Profitability. Again, this may seem obvious. However, one must realistically estimate start-up costs, and then project ongoing costs – actual operating and instructional costs, as well as the “creeping costs” of some decisions. For example, course management software providers are notorious for seducing a university with low entry-cost solutions. Once the university has built an entire program around their software – BOOM – the new contract comes in. Surprise! Your costs have just tripled. Sadly, it’s too late to change horses. Besides, there are no longer any alternative horses, unless you’re thinking open-source courseware, and that will definitely be no picnic. You’ll need a year to get an alternative solution up and running. If you’ve decided on the faculty-driven model, you’ll also have resistance from your faculty who are not willing to make the investment in rebuilding all their courses to accommodate the new platform. Even if it is an easy transition in terms of compatibility, there is always the familiarity issue. Where did these courseware providers learn their techniques? Give them free samples until they’re addicted, and then … !!

Getting serious again, the business model should be projected out to at least three years, to be updated quarterly. Here are a few useful guidelines.

–Develop a realistic business plan that is profitable even with a small start-up
–Build in scalability, with capacity increases resulting in equal or better profitability. You don’t want to limit yourself, or be unable to accommodate increases in demand!

Project Management Guiding Principles: Designing, developing and implementing an online course program is not different than any other project in the sense that sound management principles must be adhered to. If not, the program will unravel – and, it’s been my experience that it unravels at the speed of light.

–Good communication with team.
–Clear deadlines and expectations.
–High quality should be built into the process by instituting protocols and procedures for proof-reading, review, and updating. Making updates and upgrades should be rewarded; accountability can be built in by having the individuals who work on the various steps sign their names and date a spreadsheet which tracks changes.
–Participatory and team-focused work, with incentives and rewards for process improvements. How do you reward the teams, though? One way is to encourage creativity, artistic approaches, and input. Another is to give opportunities to become involved in other projects – some of which may result in additional income on the side.
–Consistency. How is this done? Sometimes the only way is to use a template for course development, with a checklist to make sure that all necessary components are included.
–Accretionary process – most products are built in an accretionary way, with layers being added on – nothing is ever considered inviolably finished and not subject to modification, recasting, or re-using for new uses. I like to think of a pearl. It grows by the slow deposition of layers of material around an initial grain of sand irritant. Our eyes are on the prize. Nevertheless, let’s be realistic about the day-to-day realities of working on a complex project filled with edgy and insecure team members. Yes, we’re definitely motivated by constant pain and irritation to build this lovely pearl of a product!

Ongoing Best Practices Reviews: One time is not enough. This should be an annual or semi-annual review, with a clearly defined list of areas to investigate and to compare against one’s own program. Areas that should be continuously investigated include:

–Institutional context, budget, and support.
–Technical requirements and support.
–Curriculum development.
–Faculty training and support.
–Student support services.
–Evaluation and assessment.

Team Approach: Although it is important to empower team members to have a certain amount of autonomy, it is absolutely imperative to have a manager who makes sure that the deadlines are being met and that information is being shared. It is also vital for the team manager to make sure that tasks are not becoming fragmented and that people understand what is occurring between the units. The team manager should

–Build a team based on mutual respect.
–Identify strengths, build on them.
–Define mission, assure buy-in by team members.
–Define roles, expectations, deadlines, targets – be sure to explain rationale
–Build in “win-win” situations.
–Embrace environmental change as an opportunity.
–Recognize and acknowledge accomplishments and contributions.
–Inspire, enthuse, motivate.

New Opportunities:
–Markets: Where are they? Who are the members of the markets, and what are their defining characteristics? What are the implications on existing programs?
–Products: What kind of educational products are needed by one’s target market?
–Delivery Methods: What are they today? What will they be tomorrow? How does this impact new product development?
–Recasting / retooling of existing products: Is this a good idea? How does it occur and why?
–Solidify brand image and presence: What is the institutional mission? Who cares about it? What does it mean to people? When and how?

Build the Brand: Your educational product is your brand. This is important to keep in mind. You must differentiate yourself from your competitors (of course, you need to know who your competitor are!). Here are a few key points:

–Establish brand leadership.
–Understand market and decision-makers within the market.
–Understand how and why perceptions are shaped around the brand.
–Build on strengths.
–Know the competition, understand their rationale in positioning themselves as they do, and in pursuing specific markets.
–Outpace and outperform competitors, except when it does not make sense in the overall business plan.

Specific Emerging Opportunities: Online education is growing, and even though it is fairly simple to put together a course or two, it is not easy to develop an entire program. Entities who understand how to partner productively with various education providers will understand precisely how to fashion programs that will meet the needs of their target market(s) and constituencies.

Here are places where teaming arrangements could be made:
–Online courses offered by universities and colleges
–Continuing education units in colleges and universities (distance education, degrees, certificates, training)
–Corporate training units: compliance, new procedures, regulations, safety, team-building, etc.
–Governmental agencies: compliance, procedures, cost-savings
–Defense and security: training, coordination, team-building, cost-savings
–ESL courses: compliment to ALL markets, esp. with online training and education

The world of online and distance programs is evolving quickly. To meet needs, many companies have made costly mistakes. They bought into programs offered by companies that collapsed in the dot.com demise, or who merged with another company and then discontinued the product or support for it. In other cases, they placed all their bets on a bad pony, who simply did not perform for them. As a result, many institutions are faced with constant rebuilding of their programs and educational products. They have precious little to salvage as they gaze upon a wasteland of what turned out to be instant obsolescence. Can one learn by their mistakes? Perhaps. Build inventories of fungible goods. Keep a good level of granularity present in the components.

What on earth does THAT mean? I don’t blame you for asking. In basic terms, remember to keep an inventory of educational products that will work across platforms and can be digitized and redigitized very easily. The “granularity” issue is pretty straightforward if you remember that small “grains” are easier to manipulate than big ones. So, make sure your lessons, courses, etc. are made out of components, and that the components are small units that can be easily “chunked.” They can also be broken apart for reassembly. Further, they can be easily reconfigured.

The brave new world offers one inviolable fact of life – change will always happen. Will it catch you off-guard? It will, from time to time. The key to survival and success is in planning and in maintaining a responsive and yet pro-active stance. In concrete terms, keep your eyes open! And, keep reading J