Executive Summary of Results

An assessment and needs analysis study was completed on how TCM faculty and our online courses use Oncourse Classic. Based on the study, the decision was made not to transition our TCM courses to Oncourse CL fall 2005.

Need for the Project

The Technical Communication program offers three of its courses in an online format: TCM 220, TCM 320, and TCM 340. This fall 2005 semester, we’re offering three sections of TCM 220, two sections of TCM 320, and one section of TCM 340. Our courses are housed in and solely supported by Oncourse Classic. All of the text, the processes, the faculty knowledge, everything is tied to Oncourse classic. To move these courses to the new Oncourse CL and potentially ePortfolio and to get faculty ready for the change is a major undertaking.

Following the assessment and needs analysis phases of this study, we determined transitioning from Oncourse Classic to Oncourse CL was not a viable option for fall 2005, but would be a better fit for spring 2005.

Use of Technology

Briefly explain how your project used instructional technology in a new or different way.

• Did your project result in modules that will help faculty transition to Oncourse CL?
• How did your project focus on specific transition issues associated with moving materials to Oncourse CL?

To understand how to transition to Oncourse CL, we needed to fully understand how our courses and faculty used Oncourse Classic. First, we surveyed the TCM faculty to find out how they used Oncourse Classic. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix 1. Additionally, Graphs of the responses to Question 1A, 1B, and 1C can be found in Appendix 2.

1. We surveyed both faculty teaching online sections and faculty teaching face-to-face sections. As expected, faculty teaching face-to-face sections did not use Oncourse to the extent of those teaching online sections; however, with only one exception, all TCM faculty used some of the Oncourse Classic functions. Generally, faculty teaching face-to-face sections all used the Syllabus function to post a syllabus for students and the Schedule function to post an assignment schedule for students. Most of them also used the Course Mail function. Many of them used the Announcements and Group Space functions. Some of them used the Gradebook function.

   Since our courses are highly collaborative, the online sections used all the functions consistently. The one finding that surprised me was the extent some of the online faculty used the Statistics function, relying heavily on the function to help them assess the degree of student participation

   The function least used by our faculty was Tests & Surveys. This finding is not surprising since we give very few quizzes in our courses and some of our faculty have not discovered the beauty of using the Survey function.

2. In addition to surveying TCM faculty, we assessed how our online courses used the functions in Oncourse Classic. Find more detailed information in Appendix 3. Again, we found no major surprises, but did confirm how critical some of the functions in Oncourse Classic are because our courses are so highly collaborative. For example, the Course Mail, Discussion Forums, Group Space, Drop Boxes, and Chat functions are used extensively in all our online sections.

   From our review of how our online sections used Oncourse Classic, we found that, for the most part, students thought the technology functional and easy to navigate. We base that comment on finding no negative comments from students about the technology with the exception of the Chat function. Here, faculty and students had complaints.

   We also had conversations with OPD staff and attended two workshops on Oncourse CL and ePortfolio. These conversations confirmed that Oncourse CL would not meet our online course needs in fall 2005. The major drawbacks were: No Course Mail function, no ‘private’ Group Space function, and no Statistics function.

   As a result of this evaluation and study, we have a better handle on how to make the transition from Oncourse classic to Oncourse CL and potentially ePortfolio (possibly for peer review or for the portfolio requirement in our TCM Certificate program), but determined we could not make the transition without the availability of the functions described in the previous paragraph.

Instructional Design Plan

Describe how the use of technology used supported your teaching approach:

• What student learning outcomes were expected?
• How did your teaching plan encourage active learning, provide feedback, address respective learning styles, and build collaboration?
• What resources were used? (campus technology support services, etc.)
• Would your project be easily understood and executed by other faculty?

Potential to Impact Student Learning

Clearly define how your project improved student learning - include specific examples of how your project:

• Fostered depth of learning
• Supported efforts to improve retention
• Fostered the learning of large numbers of students
• Has broader applications that will affect learning K-12 or community environments?

Assessment Plan

Briefly explain the effectiveness of your assessment plan:

• What measure of assessment was used?
• How did your approach obtain measures of performance?
• Did you feel your measurement was accurate and effective?

Plan for Colleague Development

Describe your role and activities as a mentor:

• What mentoring activities were implemented to assist colleagues?
• How did you help to develop colleague's instructional technology skills?
• How do you think your contributions to the Knowledge Base will help colleagues planning similar projects?
• Is your project approach potentially applicable to other contexts or disciplines?
• What tips would you offer?

Since we did not make the transition to Oncourse CL, my comments here are limited. We have begun conversations with faculty about the transition and about the Oncourse CL environment. We also plan to hold at least two OPD informational sessions with our faculty this fall semester.

Final Comments on Project Results

• Do you think you met the goals of your project?
• What, if anything,would you do differently?
• Did you have any unexpected outcomes? (positive or negative)
• Would you recommend this teaching approach to colleagues?
• What other comments or suggestions would you offer to complete this report?

We met some of our project goals, but not all. As a result of the project, we definitely have a better understanding of how our faculty and courses use the Oncourse Classic technology. We have a better understanding of Oncourse CL and ePortfolio.

We still have a long way to go to actually make the transition to Oncourse CL. Faculty will need to be completely retrained, processes will need to be redesigned, and curricula will need to be rethought and redesigned. Since Oncourse Classic will still be available in spring 2006, we’d like to keep the majority of our online sections in Classic and move our face-to-face and maybe one or two online sections to CL. Using the experience spring 2006 of the face-to-face and a representative online section or two, we can determine better how to make the transition completely to Oncourse CL.

Return to Final Reports page

AT&T Fellows Home Page

Last updated: 18 May, 2007

Comments and Questions | (317) 278-4833
Copyright © 1999-2003, The Trustees of Indiana University