Dear Faculty and Staff:
Respect your fellow human being, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, enjoy their friendship, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another achieve it. This statement by Bill Bradley sums up Chadron State College faculty and staff, as was demonstrated at the 13 October All-Campus work session: Reflecting on Our Practices – NSSE/FSSE. It is such a pleasure to work with a community of learners.
- Chadron State 2020 — http://www.csc.edu/president/2020/index.csc
- MAP Purpose — http://www.csc.edu/library/mapsupport/#tab2
- MAP Priorities & Sub-Priorities – click on “Priorities”
- Visit the VPAA Update archive versions on the VPAA website: http://csc.edu/vpaa/snaresreleases/index.csc
- An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief (Volume 3, October 2016) is available at http://www.nmc.org/publication/digital-literacy-an-nmc-horizon-project-strategic-brief/
- CSC Campus-Wide Committees/Tasks Force: updated This new version is in response to the feedback you provided.
13 October All-Campus Assessment Work Session: Reflecting on Our Practices
This was the first all-campus work session devoted to a discussion among faculty and staff regarding selected items within the 2016 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) — http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm. This work session served multiple purposes. Supportive campus climate and student engagement survey results were utilized to identify ways to retain students or questions to ask regarding student retention. Priority 4 of the MAP includes a sub-priority to improve student retention rates. In addition, one purpose of the MAP is to improve communication through a shared understanding of academic priorities; such discussions among faculty and staff are one step in that direction. The work session contributed to evidence for the HLC Reaffirmation process.
During the October 19, 2016 President’s Executive Council meeting, the feedback from the table sessions was reviewed. One action item determined by the Council related to student participation in a work session of the selected NSSE/FSSE data. Working with student leadership, President of Student Senate Katrina Hurley and Student Trustee Coy Clark, Executive Council conducted a similar session with student campus leaders on 25 October. A follow-up student work session is arranged for 1 November to discuss the results. Review of the combined evidence from all the work sessions (October 5 Executive Council, October 13 All- Campus, & October 25 student leaders) is planned for a November work session with faculty, staff, and student leaders.
Also, on 19 October 2016, the President’s Executive Council identified two avenues to share with the campus the process and information gathered from the All-Campus work session.
These included a follow-up article published by CSC Public Relations Office and information in the VPAA Update. The Deans will incorporate advising information within the New Faculty Orientation. The Campus-wide Assessment committee will consider avenues to include staff voice, campus climate and why we do NSSE. An annual October All-Campus work session to reflect on our practices will be conducted in 2017. The latter is based upon the feedback provided in the continuous improvement survey.
A continuous improvement survey of faculty, staff, and student participants was completed to better understand the usefulness of the work session. The following indicate the percentage that agreed and strongly agreed.
I am interested in learning more about CSC’s NSSE/FSSE results and comparative data
- 78% of staff
- 76% of faculty
- 51% of students
This assessment work session to review NSSE/FSSE data was informative
- 98% of staff
- 84% of faculty
- 92% of students
A table discussion with members from different units/departments were productive
- 96% of staff
- 93% of faculty
- 90% of students (the question replaced different units/departments with student leaders) This assessment work session to review NSSE/FSSE data was a valuable use of my time
- 90% of staff
- 76% of faculty
- 55% of students
For additional information about the 13 October 2016 All-Campus Work Session of Reflecting on Our Practices via the NSSE/FSSE, see the 24 October 2016 article by Alex Hembrecht, Director of Public Relations — http://www.csc.edu/modules/news/public_news/view/11418.
Faculty searches for 2017-18 AY: two Business, one Science, two Math, and one English position will be advertised early during Fall 2016 Semester
Current academic staff searches: Office Assistant II (3rd floor Old Admin); Associate Vice President for Teaching and Learning Technologies; Director of Assessment (forthcoming)
Office of Assessment
The following link to the Office of Assessment home page summarizes the roles and responsibilities of campus-wide assessment at http://www.csc.edu/assessment/index.csc. The
Office of Assessment home page may also be accessed through the VPAA home page that highlights the location of the Office of Assessment & Tk20 Information at http://www.csc.edu/vpaa/index.csc. Dr. David Nesheim, Interim Assessment Director is located in 124 Miller — http://www.csc.edu/assessment/contact/index.csc.
Nebraska Higher Education News – CCPE Report
Within the past 25 years the at-a-distance delivery format of Nebraska public higher education courses has changed. In the early 1990s face-to-face classes offered at a location off campus (such as North Platte) was the primary means of delivery. In 2004-2005 synchronous delivery surpassed the face-to-face distance format. Based upon 2014-15 data, synchronous is the least used with approximately 33,700 duplicated headcount (i.e. a student is counted every time that student takes a course) whereas asynchronous is the most used with over 152,000 duplicated headcount. As of 2014-15, the largest users of synchronous delivery are the community colleges.
In September 2016, the Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education (CCPE) issued a report with a focus on courses not offered on-campus. The report distinguishes between three types at-a-distance modalities or delivery formats for all the public institutions (community colleges, state colleges & University) in Nebraska:
- Traditional – face-to-face class in a different location other than the campus
- Synchronous – instructor and students interact during the same time but not same physical location such as two-way interactive video
- Asynchronous – instructor and students interact during a different time and place such as an online course.
- From 2012-13 to 2014-15, the number of courses at-a-distance have increased by 10.9%. CCC had the largest increase with 30.1% and WNCC with the largest decline of 18.3%.
Annual Faculty and Staff Information Fair Luncheon
Plan ahead. On 9 February 2016 (Thursday), we will be having our Annual Information Fair Luncheon from 11:00am to 12:45pm in the Student Center, Ballroom. If you have a committee or a group that would like to have a table, please email Paula Perlinski at firstname.lastname@example.org.
CSC Financial Information
The Standard and Poor’s rating for the Nebraska State College System (NSCS) is “A Stable”. The NSCS consists of Wayne State, Peru State, and Chadron State colleges. Approximately, 39% of the revenue to cover general expenditures and faculty and staff salaries comes from student tuition and fees. This does not include federal, revenue bond, or trust funds.
Support articles for several frequently asked questions are provided below:
- How do I copy my content from one site to another?
- How do I choose which tools will be available in my course?
- How do I hide, rearrange, or rename the items in the Tool Menu?
- How do I use the Lessons tool?
Please refer to the Sakai 10 Instructor Guide for additional support. The guide is also accessible from the Help menu item, or by clicking the blue help icon (?) in the top-right of any Sakai tool.
Many CSC Online-Sakai instructors are familiar with the pre-configured External Tools available to all online courses such as TurnItIn and the EBSCO Reading List. However, a vast array of educational applications are available which offer integration capabilities with CSC’s learning management system (LMS). The Teaching & Learning Center encourages the exploration and trial of new technology in teaching, and past experience has shown that integration with CSC Online can be the key to successfully launching a new learning tool. This article will discuss the background of Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) integration and how to get started using it with External Tools in CSC Online.
What Are External (LTI) Tools?
External Tools utilize the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard, which allows for simple and secure integration with external applications. The LTI protocol provides a method for the LMS to securely send user names, email addresses, user roles, and other course information to the external application.
Educational applications may use LTI integration in a wide variety of ways. Some apps may only use LTI to send the student’s name and role to the application to avoid requiring the student to log in. Other applications may directly integrate with the CSC Online Gradebook, allowing instructors to score student activities in an external application.
Using External Tools in a CSC Online Course
All course instructors have the ability to add External Tools to CSC Online courses. While an External Tool may be added and configured for any individual site by an instructor (without admin approval), some commonly used tools have been made available system-wide and may be added without additional configuration (ie. TurnItIn).
However, often times an instructor may want to test and use an external app in a course utilizing LTI integration. Fortunately, all instructors have the ability to add an External Tool without requiring the LMS administrator to make it available for all CSC Online courses. External Tools are added in Site Info > Edit Tools > External Tools. Once the tool is added, follow these instructions to configure the tool with the launch URL, secret and key provided by the publisher.
Example Applications With LTI Support
Many existing educational applications and tools contain an LTI integration component. Below are three examples to try out:
Office Mix is a free PowerPoint plug-in that provides tools for narrating, annotating, and creating interactive content such as polls within a presentation. Content created with Office Mix (referred to as Mixes) may be uploaded and shared within the Office Mix web application. While Office Mix may be used independently of the LMS, it offers an LTI integration to allow instructors to easily share Mixes in a course and track student participation. Interested in learning more about this application? Sign up for the TLC workshop offered in March 2017, Geared to Engage Students in Learning: A Simple Way to Add Interactive Content to Your Course.
Piazza is a wiki-style Q&A platform that may be used to foster strong peer (student-to-student) learning in an online class. It works by allowing students to ask and answer questions in real-time. Instructors may join in, or simply guide the conversation with endorsements and other feedback tools. Piazza can be used successfully without integrating with CSC Online. However, to avoid manually adding and requiring students to log in, the application offers a complete LTI integration (instructions here for a sample Sakai integration).
OneNote Class Notebook provides an easy way to launch a OneNote notebook for all participants of a course. A class notebook can provide a flexible space for organizing notes, collaborating on assignments, or providing real-time feedback on student work. The LTI integration will automatically add students to the notebook and provide access from within an online course.
Discovering More LTI Apps
These examples provide only a brief introduction to the variety of applications that are utilizing LTI to integrate with online learning systems. To discover more apps, browse through the IMS LTI Product Directory and the EduAppCenter collection of LTI apps.
Please contact the Teaching & Learning Center (email@example.com) for more information about LTI, External Tools, and to discuss piloting a new application integration in your courses.
The Teaching and Learning Center and the Office of Assessment are co-sponsoring “Why We Assess: Looking Back on a Century of Continuous Improvement” to bring together CSC faculty, staff, and administrators to discuss scholarly articles about the longer history of successful assessment in the private sector. The conversation will invite critical reflection on the application of assessment to higher education so that CSC can focus on how to best fulfill all aspects of our educational mission — within the classroom, across the campus, and out in the community, region, and world.
When the United States Congress passed the Higher Education Act of 1965, it transformed higher education by designating accreditation agencies as the gatekeepers for institutions that receive federal financial aid. In 1989, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools began mandating outcome-based assessment for accreditation, ushering in a new approach that was rapidly adopted nationwide. Nearly thirty years later, colleges and universities continue to adjust to the new reporting landscape, even as industry and business have embraced the ideal of quality improvement for nearly a century.
The beginnings of statistical quality control are typically traced to Bell Laboratories in the 1920s under the direction of Walter Shewhart. Following World War II, these techniques were introduced systematically to Japanese industry in the radio and communications sector, with Homer Sarasohn and Edward Deming playing important roles.
Two decades later, Japanese industry mounted a serious challenge to United States companies by producing high-quality automobiles and electronic products valued by American consumers. In response, American industry and government re-emphasized the methods pioneered in Bell Labs, represented by Congress instituting the Malcomb Baldrige National Quality Award in 1987 and the profusion of ISO 9000 as a quality management system in the USA and across the globe.
The first symposium of the “Why We Assess” series features CSC President Randy Rhine and will examine the scholarly article “Homer Sarasohn and American Involvement in the Evolution of Quality Management in Japan, 1945-1950.”  This article highlights the unique challenges faced by American officials in communicating with the Japanese people following the destruction of WWII and offers examples of individuals and institutions adapting to nearly overwhelming external pressures while increasing quality by focusing on the “well-being” of personnel.
View the Why We Assess: Looking Back on a Century of Continuous Improvement schedule for complete details regarding symposium series featured speakers and articles.
 Fisher, Nicholas I. “Homer Sarasohn and American Involvement in the Evolution of Quality Management in Japan, 1945-1950.” International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique 77, (August 2009): 276-299. Accessed 11 August 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27919728
In your online course development process, do you take specific steps aimed at addressing accessibility? How do you ensure that the course is accessible to students with a wide range of differing abilities?
General Standard 8 of the Quality Matters Rubric expects that “course design should reflect a commitment to accessibility so that all learners can access all course content and activities and to usability, so that all learners can easily navigate and interact with course components.” (Quality Matters ™ Higher Education Rubric Workbook, 2014).
Why Standard 8?
Several federal laws support the rights of individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) supports students with disabilities and is the foundational piece of legislation for ensuring equal access to programs and services in higher education. Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are also pertinent. Section 504 states that institutions are required to provide equal access to programs and services receiving federal funding, while Section 508 requires that federal websites have minimum benchmarks for website accessibility.
What Do These Laws Mean for CSC Online-Sakai Courses?
Because CSC is a public institution which receives federal funding, the online courses CSC provides to students are required to comply with these laws and ensure that course materials are accessible. The major portion of content created in CSC Sakai-Online course sites is generally accessible. However, materials developed using external applications such as Microsoft Word documents, Adobe PDFs, and multimedia may not be accessible for all students.
Incorporating accessible design enhances the learning experience for all students, not just students with disabilities. For example, selecting a font which is easy to read on a computer and mobile devices makes content more accessible for students with visual impairments, but it also provides all learners with content that is easier to read. Similarly, providing transcripts and captions for videos allows hearing impaired students to access content. However, providing multiple ways to engage with course activities and instructional materials provides an enhanced learning experience for all students.
This Accessibility Basics Handout provides guidelines for improving the accessibility and usability of your online course as per QM General Standard 8.
Are you taking specific measures to develop online course environments for students with different abilities? Post a comment below and let us know!
Quality Matters™ Higher Education Rubric Workbook (5th ed.). (2014). Annapolis, MD: MarylandOnline, Inc.