The Feasibility and Processes for Implementing a Common Course Marketplace Component at the Oregon Network for Education

CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Background
Purpose of Report
CCM Discussion Activities
Key Issues/Concerns
   1. Integration and Articulation of Courses/Programs
   2. Academic Quality
   3. Faculty Issues
   4. Student Services
   5. Administrative/Institutional Issues
Major Benefits to Implementing the CCM Concept
   1. Students
   2. Institutions
   3. Faculty
Suggestions/Next Steps
Attachments
   1. Charges for ONE CCM Committees
   2. Summary of Best Practices Guidelines
Committee Members

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The idea of the Oregon Network for Education (ONE) was introduced in 1996 at a meeting of the Joint Council of Academic Officers of the community colleges and public universities. The Council recommended the creation of a single gateway to the growing number of online resources being developed among Oregon's educational sectors. In 1998, the ONE partnership under the direction of staff in the Chancellor's Office, developed a grant proposal and received a three-year, $320,000 grant award from the federal Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). The grant enabled ONE to develop a web-searchable catalog of distance learning courses, degree programs, and services and to investigate the creation of a "Common Course Marketplace" of selected courses that could be shared among campuses for residency credit.

This report reviews and summarizes the work of three faculty committees meeting during 1999-00 to assess the potential of the Common Course Marketplace (CCM) concept. In all, 88 faculty and staff from Oregon universities and community colleges participated in discussions focusing on course-sharing and enhancing articulation among distance education programs.

The year-long review of the issues surrounding the CCM concept generated a number of key outcomes including a list of critical issues and barriers to advancing the CCM, suggested approaches and solutions to resolve barriers, and the recommendation to move from committee work towards implementation through modeling the CCM concepts in "demonstration" projects during 2000-01. Although the committees cited many critical challenges, they did not oppose the creation of a CCM. Instead, they suggested numerous approaches to resolve the barriers and suggested that the many administrative and financial issues surrounding course-sharing were larger barriers to implementing the CCM than the academic issues.

Barriers generally fell into two areas: academic and administrative/financial. Key concerns in the academic area focused on maintaining academic quality and program coherency as students enroll in courses from multiple institutions while pursuing a degree or certificate program. To address issues of quality and coherency, the committees suggested the need for convenient access to course review information and accurate advising for students. The recommendation was made to post CCM course information, learning outcomes, and expanded syllabi on the web for review by host institutions and students. Such postings could also be used to demonstrate and model best practices and guidelines.

The list of administrative/financial issues raised by committee members was extensive. These included: ensuring distance learning programs receive adequate, long-term support; developing a workable host/provider relationship that adequately compensates institutions and faculty; developing shared student support resources that efficiently provide high quality library and laboratory resources; and establishing one-stop advising, admission, and registration services. Participants suggested the quickest way to begin moving toward resolution of the administrative/financial issues was to support demonstration projects aimed at modeling course-sharing. The demonstration projects recommended by the committees reflect strong interest in advancing the CCM concept by building on existing, successful course-sharing projects, or by selecting high demand courses and programs that provide immediate benefits to students.

The FIPSE ONE Steering Committee (advisory to the ONE project) supported the recommendation made by committees to fund projects that could model and demonstrate CCM relationships among campuses during 2000-01. The FIPSE ONE project solicited CCM demonstration proposal ideas from campuses in August 2000. In fall 2000, 13 projects were tentatively selected for further development as "demonstration projects" during 2000-01. These demonstration projects will focus on issues and outcomes that hold the most potential for advancing successful models of course-sharing.

BACKGROUND

The idea of the Oregon Network for Education (ONE) was introduced in 1996 at a meeting of the Joint Council of Academic Officers of the community colleges and public universities. The Council recommended the creation of a website that would provide a single gateway to the growing number of online resources being developed among Oregon's educational sectors. The Oregon University System (OUS) took the lead in developing the gateway, and in 1997 launched the Oregon Network for Education website (http://www.ous.edu/one/) as a one-stop educational "mall" to Oregon's educational institutions, programs, and services.

In 1998, the ONE partnership under the direction of staff in the Chancellor's Office, developed a grant proposal and received a three-year, $320,000 grant award from the federal Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to expand the ONE site's distance learning offerings. Specifically, the grant enabled ONE to develop:

• a web-searchable catalog of distance learning courses, degree programs and services available from Oregon's postsecondary institutions;
• a "Common Course Marketplace" to enable campuses to share selected courses for residency credit;
• policies and formulas for assigning costs and revenues among campuses and for the designation of "host " institutions to serve students seeking college degrees via distance education.

The ONE web-searchable catalog (http://OregonONE.org/) of courses, programs, and services went "live" March 27, 2000. The catalog presently has 22 institutions participating, with nearly 80 degree and certificate programs and over 2,500 courses listed in the database.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to review the work of the Common Course Marketplace (CCM) Advisory and Core Course committees during 1999-00 and present a summary of the committees' activities. Committees were formed as part of the FIPSE grant awarded to OUS for the ONE project to expand information available to students interested in distance learning course, programs, and services. The CCM seeks to identify a select number of courses found in the ONE catalog as courses that students can take as residency credit at their home institution or transfer as residency credits to any participating campus.

CCM DISCUSSION ACTIVITIES

The first year of the FIPSE ONE project focused on building the one-stop web-searchable database of college-level distance education courses, programs, and services. The second year of the grant called for a number of faculty groups to explore issues and make recommendations on how best to advance a "common course marketplace" concept.

Three committees were created during 1999-00 from faculty names forwarded by members of the OUS Academic Council, the community college's Council of Instructional Administrators, and the ONE Steering Committee:

• A 21-member CCM Advisory Committee was asked to review the general issues surrounding the CCM concept. The committee represented a wide range of faculty and administrative personnel from OUS institutions and the community colleges.
• A Core Course CCM Committee was asked to review the potential of the CCM concept within specific academic areas. Core Course sub-committees included a 13-member math/science subcommittee, a 17-member social science subcommittee, and a 6-member writing subcommittee.

In total, 57 faculty from various disciplines and institutions participated in discussions focusing on the CCM concept during 1999-00.

Another set of committees, Degree Articulation Committees, was also formed to work in tandem with the CCM committees. Five Degree Articulation Committees (Nursing, Agriculture, Liberal Studies, Teacher Education, Business) were asked to identify pathways students could move through from associate to baccalaureate degrees, related to career areas, in a distance education mode. Pathways would serve as a base upon which "course-sharing" discussions could subsequently occur. A total of 31 faculty have been involved to date in degree articulation discussions in 1999-00.

The CCM Advisory Committee, Core Course Committees, and Degree Articulation Committees met in three plenary meetings this past year: October 20, 1999 at Portland State University; February 11, 2000 at the University of Oregon; and May 5, 2000 at the University of Oregon. Committees conducted additional work via listservs and web-based threaded discussions.

After electing chairs and reviewing committee charges and timelines, the committees focused on the discussion of issues, benefits, and barriers surrounding the selection of certain distance learning courses in the ONE catalog as courses that could be accepted for residency credit among campuses participating in the ONE project. The need to address the residency issue results from more and more students accessing resources like the ONE catalog and seeking to build degree programs from distance learning courses offered by multiple institutions.

Although the CCM committees were asked to consider the CCM concept in broad terms, several key points were established from the start:

• ONE would be operating as a "virtual consortium" rather than a "virtual university." ONE would not offer programs or courses independently. The campuses participating in ONE would retain ownership of the course/programs and remain the degree-granting entities.
• A representative from the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) clarified for ONE participants that residency requirements are established by individual institutions and that the accreditation associations do not have specific policies dealing with residency requirements. However, NASC does require a program to demonstrate how individual courses create coherency in degree programs and Oregon institutions were advised to keep that concept a centerpiece of deliberations.
• The goal of committee work was to carefully consider what issues had to be addressed and what steps had to be taken in order to maintain program quality and coherency, while also offering distance learners access to the full range of courses available in distance learning formats from multiple campuses.

Each committee member was also asked to respond to the following questions concerning the Common Course Marketplace concept:

1. In your view, what are the five key issues/topics raised by the CCM concept?
2. What major benefits could the CCM offer Oregon students and institutions?
3. What are key barriers we must address in implementing the CCM?
4. If you believe we are ready to try some form of a CCM in Oregon, describe the model(s) you think could realistically be implemented in the next year.

Participants were asked to discuss responses within their committees. Forty-two of the original 57 CCM committee members returned the questionnaire to the ONE project. The goal of the questionnaire and the committee discussions was to create a summary of the group's best thoughts on the CCM concept and offer ideas for advancing the CCM.

KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS (drawn from committee meeting discussions, individual response forms)

1. Integration and Articulation of Courses/Programs

   The CCM concept raised concerns over the ability of colleges and universities to maintain coherent, well structured degree and certificate programs if students seek to build degrees by taking distance learning courses from multiple institutions. The common requirement among colleges and universities that students take the last 45 credits as residency credits prior to graduation is based on the NASC requirement that degree programs demonstrate coherency and structure among courses. Committee members felt the NASC goal of program coherency requires careful planning within departments to structure a program that builds on prerequisites and the specialization of the faculty. Faculty were concerned that under the CCM concept (the transcription of courses taken from other institutions as resident credit), they would lose control over the quality and uniqueness of their degree programs.

   In order to advance the CCM concept, additional interinstitutional planning and articulation would have to occur to protect the integrity of degree programs. They would include:

   • Student Advising.  Some form of interinstitutional advising network would have to be developed to ensure students receive accurate information on residency issues and articulation and transferability of specific courses within degree programs. Much of this information could be placed online as transfer and articulation agreements are developed.
   • CCM Course Information.  In order to evaluate whether a specific CCM course would fit into a degree program, the department offering the course would have to post detailed information about the course for review by departments in other institutions. The required information should include a detailed syllabus or course outline, expected learning outcomes, testing/student assessment plans, list of accompanying textbook(s) or other learning materials, name and background of faculty, etc.
   • Comparability of Courses.  The concern was raised that many campuses use the same course numbers but offer very different content with different breadth, scope, and rigor. To assume a CCM course equates to other courses with similar numbers or titles could disadvantage students who find themselves ill-prepared for advanced courses. For some committee members, the diversity of content within similarly numbered courses was a benefit in that students would have a greater diversity of content to choose from, as long as the content information was clearly stated in the online course descriptions. Other members argued for statewide unification of course numbering and standardization of content, syllabi and outcomes of lower division, and prerequisite courses within key academic and professional programs. The standardization of course numbering and content was thought to make it much easier for campuses to implement the CCM and allow students to access key foundation courses on a time schedule that met their needs.
   • Lead Institutions.  It was suggested that program coherency would remain intact if select institutions would provide the "core" courses for degree/certificate programs and students could meet elective and general education requirements from a pool of CCM courses.

2. Academic Quality

   The committees suggested that each CCM course would have to undergo some form of assessment or evaluation in order to ensure academic quality and be accepted among participating institutions. There was general agreement that the evaluation process should consist of campuses demonstrating that their courses meet agreed-upon guidelines and "best practices," as opposed to a separate body or office which would evaluate and "certify" CCM courses.

   Rather than establish new criteria or measures of quality assurance, the committees reviewed distance education best practices already adopted by other consortia (see Attachment 2 for two main best practices documents) and recommended ONE adopt and/or modify existing standards of best practices as guidelines for assessing course quality and acceptance into the CCM. Other key concerns over academic quality included:

   • Laboratory Work.  It is possible to teach laboratory concepts in an online environment but very difficult to offer hands-on laboratory experience if students don't have access to appropriate facilities. Hands-on laboratory experience is most important in the sciences, nursing, and some engineering fields. It may be possible to set up "shared" regional lab facilities for students or set up weekend or summer lab sessions. This is an idea Oregon institutions were encouraged to pursue.
   • Ongoing Support.  Campuses must provide consistent, ongoing support for courses once they are listed. It was noted that campus and departmental support of distance learning programs fluctuate. Once a course is listed in the CCM, the campus must commit to maintaining student support services and continue to meet any agreed-upon best practices criteria.
   • Rapid Growth in CCM Courses.  It would be difficult to assess the quality of CCM courses if there are many new additions each term. Students could end up enrolling in CCM courses before campuses have time to review content and learning outcomes and make the assessment of whether the course fits into existing programs. Also, course enrollments could grow rapidly in some courses and create problems for faculty unless course enrollment caps are established and clearly posted. Timing then, for students, becomes a problem.

3. Faculty Issues

   Many of the faculty concerns related to maintaining academic quality and program coherency. There was concern that the CCM concept would not allow faculty adequate control over the quality of degrees offered to students and that students would graduate without meeting the expectations of the degree. This loss of control would potentially end up hurting the standing of the program and institution. On the other hand, some committee members argued that by establishing clear criteria for good practices, faculty would have shared guidelines that would improve course development and support of distance learners.

   Other faculty concerns included:

   • Lack of Incentives.  There remains a lack of incentives for faculty to participate in distance education. Administrative and departmental changes must occur in order to ensure distance education activities have a positive impact on tenure, research, pay, and release time.
   • Intellectual Property Rights.  The uncertainty of who owns instructional material produced by faculty hinders faculty participation in online teaching. Intellectual property right policies should be clearly articulated and circulated by each campus. All CCM courses should remain under ownership of the faculty or institution that developed the course. Polices that limit the ability of faculty to control their teaching materials should be considered a deterrent to distance education.
   • Copyright.  The need for CCM courses to adhere closely to copyright laws was emphasized.
   • Administrative Efficiency vs. Academic Quality.  Faculty articulated a concern that administrators will approach the CCM only as a cost saving device and not take steps to ensure adequate student support and program quality. Committee members felt there has been a lack of commitment by some campuses to adequately support distance education initiatives.

4. Student Services

   Moving courses into the CCM raised concerns that some student services could "fall between the cracks" and not be met by either the campus offering the course or the campuses hosting the course. The CCM also raised the possibility that students could receive support services from several different institutions at the same time, including different registration/admission requirements, library services, advising, etc.. To ensure students were adequately supported, committee members recommended that ONE centralize key student services or have each student declare a "host" institution which would be the sole source for support. Related issues included:

   • Student Readiness.  Students must be able to assess their readiness to enroll in a distance education course, including having the required technical skills and independent learning abilities. Access to technical support and academic advising services must also be considered.
   • Secure Test-taking and Student Identification.  CCM courses should establish clear methods to authenticate student work and assessment.
   • Accessibility.  All CCM courses must meet ADA accessibility standards.
   • Uniform Registration.  ONE should establish a uniform registration form and procedure to be shared among participating campuses. Without a common registration form, students will have to complete different registration forms for each class they enroll in.
   • Online Advising.  The CCM raises concerns about interinstitutional advising. Without careful advising on articulation and transfer issues, students could be misled and end up taking courses that do not meet program requirements. It was recommend that the ONE site post articulation agreements and clearly state how CCM courses fit into specific programs. This information could be utilized by students and advisors.
   • Financial Aid.  Federal financial aid policies may make it difficult for students to demonstrate FTE requirements and campuses to issue financial aid to students taking courses from multiple institutions.
   • Library/Bookstore.  It will be important for ONE to centralize library and bookstore services or students could end up having to contact multiple bookstores and secure access to multiple libraries to complete a single term.
   • Technical Support.  Centralized, one-stop technical support was recommended to assist students with general technical questions or complaints. Also, CCM courses should clearly state hardware requirements and technical skills needed to successfully participate in the course.

5. Administrative/Institutional Issues

   Logistical and administrative issues raised the greatest number of concerns among the CCM committees. For many members, the CCM raised the need for a number of centralized services and implied some form of regulatory body to evaluate whether a course could be listed as a CCM course. Recommended centralized services included:

   • Handling day-to-day management issues (web page updates, notifying campus of CCM enrollments, tuition/FTE transfers, dispersal of state dollars, faculty training, joint curriculum development).
   • Marketing of the ONE site and soliciting additional CCM courses.
   • Establishing standard student fees.
   • Deciding if a course should be included in the CCM and handling disputes.
   • Resolving "turf" issues and quality concerns.
   • The need for centralized student records, registration, transcripts, counseling and advising services, and library/bookstore services.

   The implication of a new administrative organization raised concerns over balancing campus independence with the potential regulatory role of the new organization. A number of questions were advanced:

   • Would best practices become requirements for participation or guidelines for improving online instruction?
   • How would the guidelines impact faculty freedom to design and experiment with web-based instruction?
   • Will campuses maintain independence in deciding whether to accept CCM courses?
   • What role will ONE play as a central coordinator/gatekeeper of CCM courses?
   • Who owns CCM courses – ONE, the institution, or the faculty?

   Although there was support for centralizing key support services for students, the consensus among participants was to maintain a consortial approach with institutions retaining autonomy in curricular and program areas.

   A final critical administrative concern raised by the committees was the need to resolve the host/provider issue. The willingness of campuses to participate in the CCM was dependent on establishing financial incentives for sharing FTE, tuition, and course-development costs. The committees acknowledged the difficulty in implementing financial and shared FTE agreements due to the range in tuition, state support, financial aid policies, course funding, and faculty pay that exists among participating campuses.

MAJOR BENEFITS TO IMPLEMENTING THE CCM CONCEPT

The charge to the CCM committees (Attachment 1) included assessing the benefits of moving forward with the CCM concept. After reviewing the many issues and concerns raised by implementing the CCM, committee members were asked to evaluate the potential benefits of the CCM and suggest ways to advance the CCM concept.

1. Students

   The CCM committees cited students as being the greatest benefactors of advancing the CCM concept. Although the focus was on distance education students, it was noted that on-campus students would also benefit from the CCM. The most often cited benefit for students was "access to a wider variety of course offerings." A single institutions could not produce the diversity and breadth of offerings that would be available to students from a consortium. Without the CCM, students would not have easy access to the rapidly growing number of distance learning courses. With the CCM, both on- and off-campus students would have the ability to select specialty courses and learning modes that best meet their academic and career goals.

   Other benefits of the CCM would be to:

   • Provide flexible access to key sequential courses that have a tendency to fill up quickly.
   • Provide seamless course access across sectors.
   • Expand curriculum choices for students
   .
   • Reduce credit transfer problems students often face.
   • Allow students to move through programs more quickly.
   • Allow students to select delivery modes that best fit their needs.
   • Address access and flexibility needs that are especially important to part-time students, adult students, and/or geographically/physically isolated students.

2. Institutions

   The benefits to institutions generally focused on improved strategic planning, shared development costs, and increased enrollments. The CCM would benefit institutions by:

   • Improving strategic planning by improving the ability of campuses to conduct gap analysis for courses that round out degrees, enhance degrees, or meet speciality needs.
   • Filling high-cost specialty courses with off-campus students.
   • Allowing campuses to quickly add sections to accommodate sudden enrollment increases.
   • Filling out programs with courses from other institutions.
   • Providing a cost-effective way to meet enrollment fluctuations.
   • Increasing FTE and state support dollars.
   • Sharing cost/work for course and degree development.
   • Combining marketing efforts.
   • Increasing ways for campuses to recruit part-time students.
   • Providing campuses a cost effective way to meet the growing demand for online education.

3. Faculty

   The greatest benefits provided by the CCM to faculty focused on improved development and delivery of distance education offerings. The establishment of best practices would give faculty a framework for quality course development and allow faculty to justify design and support services to administrative offices. There was acknowledgment that many faculty are working in isolation and would benefit from a more open, shared dialog about course design, technology, course ownership, and other critical distance education concerns shared among faculty. The CCM was seen as an opportunity for faculty from different institutions and departments to learn from each other, improve teaching, and better integrate curriculum among institutions.

SUGGESTIONS/NEXT STEPS

At the final plenary meeting (May 2000), the CCM committees acknowledged that the issues surrounding the CCM concept were difficult and numerous. The committees agreed that the best way to advance the goal of sharing distance learning courses for residency credit among participating institutions was to move away from committee work (discussions) on the issue, toward implementing a number of demonstration projects that would advance the CCM concept in concrete ways. It was also recommended that the demonstration projects build on activities and projects already underway in the state which support CCM goals. These included building on existing examples of "best practices," the many articulation agreements already established between community colleges and OUS institutions, the unification of course numbering and content already being undertaken within some academic areas (i.e. writing and biology), and the growing number of web-based resources already online or under development (e.g., the community college online advising prototype, the ONE catalog of courses and programs, and program-specific information available at institutions).

The following list of suggested demonstration projects was generated during an open discussion at the conclusion of the plenary meeting:

1. Start with the CCM as a source of course information and move toward shared course listings.

   Selected a number of courses (10-20 courses select through a gap analysis) that offer the most promise for sharing among ONE participants, and begin the process toward getting campuses to accept the courses for residency credit. Use the demonstration project to develop policy. A key component to shared residency requires faculty to maintain responsibility for academic quality and coherent programs. To meet this end, faculty require easy access to complete course information in order to assess how well the course fits within existing programs. Building on the ONE course catalog, an expanded CCM course "template" could be designed that would include the type of information faculty require to assess course content and learning outcomes. Campuses that choose to submit demonstration courses to the CCM would complete a CCM course template and post the course at the ONE site. Once campuses/departments have posted CCM courses for review, ONE could work within specific academic areas to have courses listed jointly among two or more campuses. By working through several joint listings, it would be possible to develop a more general agreement for sharing courses among institutions.

   Items recommended for inclusion in the CCM course information template included:

   • course title, number and credits
   • course description
   • course delivery mode
   • adherence to accepted "best practices" standards
   • prerequisites
   • student technical requirements/skills
   • institution from which the courses is originating
   • faculty information
   • expanded syllabus/course outline
   • learning outcomes
   • description of student learning assessments
   • whether course is part of any transfer/articulation agreements
   • student support services information (library, advising contacts, faculty-student interaction)
   • enrollment caps
   • adherence to copyright laws

2. Advance host/provider model at two levels – the AAOT among community colleges and a general education degree among OUS institutions.

   The committees reported that one of the greatest hindrances to sharing courses among institutions was the lack of a financial model for sharing FTE and tuition between the institution providing the course and the institutions receiving or hosting the course. This issue is further complicated when trying to share courses among OUS institutions and the community colleges due to the different funding models, tuition rates, and methods of calculating student FTE.

   A host/provider framework was developed by the community colleges in the fall of 1997 as a means of providing more course options to community college students throughout the state. Under the arrangement, a "provider" community college opens space within their distance education classes for students from other community college districts. The instructors for the courses are located at the provider college.

   A community college that wishes to "host" such classes, advertise the "provider" course/s as if it were their own course(s). Registration and student services are provided by the local or host college. The only difference is the instructor is located at the provider campus. Most of the courses are online using the Internet. Course syllabi are posted to the instructor's websites. Students check the site for class discussion, assignments, and to turn in assignments and tests. Communication between the student and the instructor is via email or telephone.

   Telecourses are also available through the host/provider program. Reading material is supplemented by video tapes that are made available to the host students. Communication with the instructor is generally via telephone or email. Assignments may be mailed to the provider college or sent through email depending on the instructor. Exams are often proctored by the hosting institution. The host and provider colleges split the tuition and FTE reimbursement based on a fourth week student count.

   Although the student numbers for this program do not constitute a great percentage of the distance learning enrollment within the state, it has afforded course options and opportunities to student who otherwise might have to look elsewhere to complete their schedules. During the 1998-99 academic year, 851 students were served through the host/provider program.

   The recommendation was made to review the existing AAOT host/provider arrangement operating among community colleges and replicate the agreement among OUS institutions for general education requirements. Once the basic host/provider agreements are in place for the AAOT and the OUS general education requirements, the campuses would be in a better position to expand host/provider relationships to other academic areas and between the community colleges and OUS institutions.

3. Start by compiling and reviewing existing credit transfer and articulation agreements, and build a model or template to be used by other academic/ program areas as they seek to build shared programs.

   In addition to the articulation work underway by the Joint Boards of Education, committee members cited several groups in Oregon working on articulation and common course numbering agreements (a writing group and biology instructors). Also, many OUS institutions and neighboring community colleges have created articulation and transfer agreements to help students move more efficiently from the community colleges into specific programs at OUS institutions: Rather then "re-invent the wheel," the suggestion was made to review the work already done in articulation and transfer and create a model or template for future agreements. The model should include suggested processes/procedures require to work toward articulation agreements, a template of a general articulation agreement, and several examples of working agreements.

4. Select a pilot from the five academic areas (nursing, business, agriculture, liberal studies, teacher education) under consideration by the Degree Articulation Committees and work through articulation and host/provider issues for a single degree program. This work would become a model for additional programs.

   Several committee members suggested building on the articulation work underway by the Degree Articulation Committees by selecting a single program and taking the next steps toward shared residency credit among participating campuses by resolving host/provider issues, common registration, and cross-listing of courses in multiple university/college catalogs. It was assumed the Degree Articulation Committees would work through issues of common course numbering and unification of content and address concerns over program coherency and quality. The remaining issues to be resolved would be financial and administrative. By resolving the financial/ administrative issues, the ONE project would have a CCM model that could be replicated in other academic areas.

5. Select a lead institution to offer a program that has statewide importance and need (i.e., criminal justice, information technology management, business), and build a statewide program through shared general education and elective/ speciality courses.

   A number of committee members suggested selecting a demonstration program that could muster statewide, political, and financial support. To ensure program coherency, it was suggested that a lead institution be responsible for development of courses core to the program but rely on partnering campuses to offer general education and/or speciality courses and related minors. This way the cost of offering students a full range of electives and minors would be shared among participants. For example, a single campus could offer the core courses for a criminal justice degree, while relying on the community colleges to provide the AAOT, and other campuses to provide a number of general education requirements and related minors (business, military science, psychology, etc.)

CHARGES FOR ONE CCM COMMITTEES

At the second plenary meeting of the ONE Common Course Marketplace committees held in Eugene on February 11, 2000, the Common Course Marketplace Advisory Committee, Core Course Committee, and Degree Articulation Committee received the following charges. Background materials provided to the three committees included:

• ONE brochure
• OregonONE home page
• Principles of Good Practice for Electronically Offered Academic Degree and Certificate Programs, Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications
• Accreditation Handbook, Policy on Distance Delivery
• Selected lower division course listings from the prototype ONE catalog
• Articulation and transfer materials, including OUS web pages
• Host/provider Oregon community college information
• Washington ONLINE (community college course-sharing)
• Tri-State Agricultural Distance Delivery Alliance (TADDA)

Charge
A committee of faculty/staff from community colleges and universities is charged with developing and recommending criteria/standards that might make courses acceptable for CCM status. CCM courses would be "common currency" courses, distance education courses shared among colleges/ universities for residency credit. The committee is asked to identify and review related policy papers from other states and develop recommended criteria for institutions to consider in order for a course to be considered for the CCM (e.g., enhanced syllabi, description of course materials, alignment of content with sister institutions offering similar courses, following "best practices" guidelines for distance education courses).

Timeline
A report is requested at the conclusion of the committee's deliberations in summer 2000, describing selected criteria and raising issues/concerns that may require additional discussion.

Dissemination
The report will be reviewed with the ONE Steering Committee and institutions participating in the ONE project. The final report will have national distribution as a component of the FIPSE ONE project.

Milestones

Processes   The Committee is asked to meet in plenary session(s) to review broad issues related to a Common Course Marketplace at the lower division level in 1999-00. The Committee Chair will be asked to take the lead in establishing meetings, calling on project staff for assistance as needed; and providing status reports of progress to project staff on a monthly basis.

Tasks/Suggested Questions   By June 2000, the Committee is asked to develop a document which defines recommended criteria/procedure(s) for considering selected lower-division courses from the ONE distance education catalog as CCM, and raise issues/concerns that may require additional discussion.

Suggested questions to guide tasks:

1. How should we think about a "CCM" course in contrast to transferring credits among institutions as currently occurs through the AAOT?
2. What criteria could a "provider" institution follow in order to have a course considered for CCM status (e.g., enhanced syllabi, description of course materials, alignment of content with sister institutions offering similar courses, following "best practices" guidelines for distance education courses, specific disciplinary requirements)? What criteria could a "host" institution follow in order to agree to use another institution's course as its own (e.g., peer review)?
3. What process could participating institutions follow in order to agree to accept a CCM course?

4. Reactions to these possible criteria for CCM selection:

   • Select courses that are potentially core to multiple degree programs – majors and minors. If so, how would we select?
   • Courses are currently transfer courses that are part of the AAOT (not professional/technical courses).
   • Courses follow Oregon common course numbering policies.
   • Courses are provided by multiple institutions (they are redundant).
   • Courses are unique (offered only at one institution, so should/could be shared by other institutions).

5. Is course numbering working for lower division courses now? Can we generally assume that a similarly numbered course will meet requirement for similarly numbered courses at sister institutions?
6. Could a broad policy of acceptance work on the assumption that all institutions are accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (i.e., we wouldn't have to peer review every course selected for the CCM)?
7. For lower division transfer courses that are part of the AAOT degree, could a broad policy of acceptance work on the assumption that these courses all transfer to an OUS institution and are part of the AAOT?

Charge
A committee of faculty from community colleges and universities – spanning nine lower division core disciplinary areas – is charged with considering specific courses that might be considered for the Common Course Marketplace. CCM courses would be "common currency" courses (distance education courses shared among colleges/universities for residency credit). The committee is asked to develop recommended criteria/processes for institutions to consider in selecting courses for inclusion in an Oregon CCM (see "task" below). These might include enhanced syllabi, description of course materials, alignment of content with sister institutions offering similar courses, following "best practices" guidelines for distance education courses, specific disciplinary requirements, etc.

Timeline
At the conclusion of the committee's deliberations in summer 2000, a report from each subgroup (math/science, social sciences, writing) is requested. The report should review the findings of the committee and the perspectives of the nine disciplines included within the committees, and raise issues/concerns that may require additional discussion, particularly issues that the committee working in 1999-00 wish to raise for the committee which will consider these issues from an upper division and graduate-level perspective in 2000-01.

Dissemination
The report will be reviewed with the ONE Steering Committee and institutions participating in the ONE project. The core course committee's report (made up of three reports and/or consolidated into a single report) will have national distribution as a component of the FIPSE ONE project.

Processes   The Committee is asked to divide into three broad groups: 1) math/science to cover courses in biology and mathematics; 2) social sciences to cover courses in economics, psychology, philosophy, political science, sociology, history; and 3) writing. The Committee is asked to meet in plenary session(s) to review broad issues related to a Common Course Marketplace from disciplinary perspectives at the lower division level in 1999-00; in subgroups to consider issues related to the areas of math/science; social sciences; and writing; and in disciplinary groups if appropriate to consider specific course/discipline issues. Committee chairs/facilitators are asked to take the lead in establishing meetings, calling on project staff for assistance as needed; and providing status reports of progress to project staff on a monthly basis.

Tasks/Suggested Questions   By June 2000, the Committee is asked to develop a document which describes recommended procedure(s) for considering selected lower-division courses from the ONE distance education catalog as CCM courses. It would be preferable to have a single document from the committee (rather than three separate documents), with sections included from the subgroups (e.g., math/science, social sciences, writing) as appropriate; and sections from specific disciplines (e.g., philosophy, biology) as appropriate.

Suggested questions to guide tasks:

1. How should we think about a CCM course in contrast to transferring credits among institutions as currently occurs through the AAOT?
2. What criteria could a "provider" institution follow in order to have a course considered for CCM status (e.g., enhanced syllabi, description of course materials, alignment of content with sister institutions offering similar courses, following "best practices" guidelines for distance education courses, specific disciplinary requirements)? What criteria could a "host" institution follow in order to agree to use another institution's course as its own (e.g., peer review)?
3. What process could institutions follow in order to agree to accept a CCM course?
4. Reactions to these possible criteria for CCM selection:
   • Select courses that are potentially core to multiple degree programs – majors and minors. If so, how would we select?
   • Courses are currently transfer courses that are part of the AAOT (not professional/technical courses).
   • Courses follow Oregon common course numbering policies.
   • Courses are provided by multiple institutions (they are redundant).
   • Courses are unique (offered only at one institution, so should/could be shared by other institutions).
5. Is course numbering working for lower division courses now? Can we generally assume that a similarly numbered course will meet requirement for similarly numbered courses at sister institutions?
6. Could a broad policy of acceptance work on the assumption that all institutions are accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (i.e., we wouldn't have to peer review every course selected for the CCM)?
7. For lower division transfer courses that are part of the AAOT degree, could a broad policy of acceptance work on the assumption that these courses all transfer to an OUS institution and are part of the AAOT?

Charge
A committee of faculty from community colleges and universities is charged with articulating selected distance education degree programs (associate to baccalaureate or first professional). Program areas are: nursing, liberal studies, agriculture, initial teaching licensure program, and business (business will be initiated in 2000).

Timeline
At the conclusion of the committee's deliberations in summer 2000, a report from each program group (nursing, liberal studies, agriculture, and initial teaching licensure) is requested for provision to the ONE project, for review by the ONE Steering Committee and institutions participating in the ONE project.

Dissemination
The Committee's work will result in articulation descriptions included at the ONE web site, to advise students about degree pathways and link students to Oregon institutions which offer recommended/required courses and programs. Articulation information will be shared in a report for national distribution as a component of the FIPSE ONE project.

Processes   The Committee is asked to meet in plenary session to review/develop approaches for descriptions of articulated degree pathways, so that information on degree pathways may be displayed in consistent formats and with similar information at the ONE site. The Committee is also asked to meet in program groups – nursing, liberal studies, agriculture, initial teacher licensure, business – to review programs available at institutions, courses available within those programs, ways students could best move among the institutions, the type of information students need to plan their pathways using distance education modes, etc. Committee chairs/facilitators are asked to take the lead in establishing meetings, calling on project staff for assistance as needed; and providing status reports of progress to project staff on a monthly basis.

Tasks/Recommended Next Steps   By June 2000, the Committee is asked to develop a document which describes articulated distance education degree/program pathways, from associate to baccalaureate and/or first professional in four areas: nursing, agriculture, liberal studies, initial teacher licensure, and business. If full degree pathways cannot be completed via distance education, the documentation should describe which portions of the program(s) students could access via distance education modes.

Suggested next steps are:

1. Identify and review articulated distance education program pathways in use elsewhere (e.g., Portland Community College/Governors State University for Liberal Studies Baccalaureate Degree; Tri-State Agricultural Distance Delivery Alliance between Washington State University, University of Idaho, and Oregon State University; Oregon Health Sciences University - School of Nursing agreements with Oregon community colleges).
2. Identify components recommended for articulated program pathways for the ONE project (what the "template" should, at a minimum, include).
3. Review recommended distance education courses to take at the lower division level for best transition to entry to baccalaureate program/first professional.
4. Review the availability of courses in distance education modes in each program pathway area (e.g., from reviewing prototype catalog). Determine if courses are required for which there are no distance education (or few) alternatives.
5. Identify institutions that would participate in articulated pathways in each program area.
6. Describe how students could move from associate degree programs to baccalaureate and develop some simplified graphic/visual approaches ONE might take to display this for students.
7. Share descriptions among the five program areas for review by colleagues; seek reactions from other institutional colleagues.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP