Running head: MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL

McWhitBrit Program Proposal

Britney Gilkey, Whitney Humphrey, Rachael Jones McAfee
Indiana University
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1

McWhitBrit Program Proposal

Education is not confined by the four walls of a classroom, and an instructor armed with

a textbook is no longer the primary educational resource. In the twenty-first century, we now can

connect learners to a variety of remote education resources globally and instantaneously, defying

barriers of space and time. (Merrill & Young 2012, p.1). Currently, the D521 Participation

Training course has a requirement of learners and facilitators to spend three days within the

classroom. This proposal seeks to transfer the in-class session to an online format.

Our Organization

Globalization is beginning to affect every aspect of our lives (Ruby, 2005). To the

average person, education is accessible in many ways. The Internet is putting informal learning

within grasp; this means formal education and the university must change with the world or it

runs the risk of being left behind. By 2020 distance education is projected to be a large part of

growth for international higher education (Rovai & Downey, 2009). In an effort to remain

competitive as a higher education institution in the age of globalization, Dr. Lemuel Watson, the

Dean of the Indiana University School of Education, has decided to make a move to request each

department within the school to reevaluate their online courses and degrees offered.

The Adult Education Department Chair, Dr. Marjorie Treff, tasked the department with

converting a key Adult Education class, currently offered only in-person, D521 Participation

Training, to an online-only course. We are a group of three Adult Education Department faculty

and staff members who will work together to transition D521 Participation Training fully online.

Converting D521 Participation Training will make the Adult Education master’s degree

100% online. Currently, most of D521 Participation Training is offered online except for a three-

day face-to-face class meeting held at the end. The in-person component presents a conflict with
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 2

its Adult Education students who look to take courses online because they have other obligations

that keep them out of traditional classes.

Online learning strategies must present materials that enable students to process the

materials effectively; this means educators must create a way to give the content staying power

(Anderson, 2008). The Adult Education Department offers degrees online, many of which are

already entirely sufficient with no in-class components. Moving Participation Training entirely

online will give the department one more way to be competitive in a technological educational

system that is open to the world. The focus of the department is to offer education and its ability

to be accessed by more people will serve to keep the department relevant.

Our Learner Population

The current online nature of the course is supportive of the needs of the shifting learner

base. Dabbagh (2007) points out, “Generation Xers (born 1960-1980) made up the majority of

distance education learners.” The author then went on to explain, “Generation Next (born 1980-

2000) would soon be taking over distance education as the majority.” With them, “Generation

Next” would bring a more technological, more socially inclined learner—a learner that is looking

to learn through discussion and the exchanging information by examining the validity of

classmates’ claims and use it to expand knowledge. Looking at the mix of learners in programs,

moving the remainder of the Participation Training course to web-based will work with the

natural direction of distance learners.

To adequately determine what learner population to serve, it is imperative to account for

the shift in focus in distance education. Gone are the older, mostly employed, place-bound

learners (Dabbagh, 2007). The new learner is more diverse, younger, and more technologically

savvy than before. On the micro-level, when describing our learner population, we will serve
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 3

those looking to complete the requirements of the Indiana University Adult Education master’s

degree. When thinking of the shift of educational needs on a macro scale, i.e., Indiana University

looking to compete within a global marketplace, the change should encompass not only current

distance learners but future learners as well. Opening to the globalized market of distance

education means the course has to appeal to an even more diverse group than the average

American learner. Other cultures and what is considered standard in international education must

be taken into consideration.

Program Content and Delivery Choices

As the School of Education and the Adult Education Department is fully functional

within the Indiana University system, the first choice for delivery will be based on available and

supported applications housed within One-IU. Canvas is the online course management system

currently supported by the university. As the D521 Training Participation program currently is

completed within the Canvas platform, this proposal seeks to transfer the in-class training to also

be housed in the Canvas online course management system.

All teaching and learning systems should be built from two vantage points: the needs of

the intended students, and the intended learning outcomes of the course or program – i.e., the

knowledge, skills, and attributes that students will gain. An ideal online learning system is based

on a plan that flows from a full understanding of these two fundamentals. (Anderson, 2008, p.

123). The intended learners for this course as described previously in the learner population

consists of current learners matriculating in the Adult Education MSEd Program, those gaining

the Training Participation certificate, and future learners. Current enrolled learners will have had

experience in Canvas from prior courses before the enrollment of this course.
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 4

According to Anderson (2008, p. 129), “The proposal should also identify the

composition of the development and delivery teams that will be established to undertake the

project ... the content expert who is also an experienced educator and well trained to use a

comprehensive web-learning platform and related technologies which are already fully supported

by the institution or company.” Canvas Conferences would be the application used to conduct

the planning of the Topic, Goal, and Objective (TGO) process for the D521 Training

Participation course. Prior learning in Canvas should allow user-friendly navigation throughout

the application, as it should be comparable to other applications housed within Canvas.

Individual learner bandwidth may be of concern regarding the capability of the

individual's ability to participate while streaming live. A direct transition would require (about

21 hours over three days) streaming online, learners’ individual data limits would need to be

taken into consideration. This format may be best presented expanded over the course of two

three-day weekends. This shifts the concern from bandwidth to individual Internet data usage

costs and restraints. The differentiation in format is to allow more flexibility for learners and a

fully immersed distance learning course.

The intended learning outcome is to complete a TGO with the intended consequence of

establishing rapport or a sense of community among learners within the course. Based on

enrollment, learners will be divided into groups in order to plan the structure of an effective

meeting. The Conferences application allows video chat simultaneously with live dictation.

Allowing the opportunity for cooperative interaction also fulfills the requirements needed to have

an observer role. The recorder role is able to be fulfilled through the option for live dictation.

The facilitator would assist as needed. The optional tools that Canvas Conferences allows

includes the recording of meetings along with a chat function which permits learning groups to
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 5

implement their own best practices while participating within the course. This opportunity for

review of the TGO process also provides the opportunity for all learners to be observers

simultaneously.

Our Funding Model

Our funding model was based on Academic Year 2019-20 tuition rates as stated on the

IU Student Central “MoneySmarts” website. As you can see from the D521 Participation

Training Income chart below, we estimate 14 students taking this class per semester, with half

paying in-state tuition and half paying out-of-state tuition. We propose teaching this class two

semesters each academic year. In our income projection we also include the distance education

course fee and the distance education learning center fee as we will also use it to offset the

expenses of the distance education technology (Canvas) provided by the university. By our

estimates, we project by teaching two semesters of D521 Participation Training online, with 14

students per semester, we will have annual income of $85,790.88.

Semesters
Participation Training Income Students/Semester Total Income
Taught AY
In-State Graduate
Tuition ($433.60 x 3 $1,300.80 7 2 $18,211.20
cred hr)
Out-of-State
Graduate Tuition
$4,413.12 7 2 $61,783.68
($1471.04 x 3 cred
hr)
Distance Education
Course Fee ($30 x 3 $90.00 14 2 $2,520.00
cred hr)
Distance Ed
Learning Center Fee $117.00 14 2 $3,276.00
($39 x 3 cred hr)

Total Income Per Academic Year for the Participation Training

$85,790.88
Program
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 6

The expenses we estimated for D521 Participation Training center around staffing,

technology, and office support to support the course. We used 100% of the student fees

dedicated to distance education to pay for Canvas, the platform we would use to deliver the

online Participation Training course. This is a wash, with our distance education technology

budget line zeroing out each year.

Estimating staff expense to support the new Participation Training course was based on

staff salaries found on the Indiana University Financial Management Services website that shares

IU staff and faculty salaries. We are also aware, because of our experience hiring within the

university, to budget 40% of the salary to cover employee benefits. We have accounted for this

in our budget.

We recommend that an already-existing faculty member, not a new hire, would spend 12

hours a week, each week during the 16 week semester teaching, grading, and interacting with

students for one 3-credit hour course. There would also be administrative support, again

provided by an already existing staff member, assigned to support the faculty member teaching

Participation Training, for an estimated 6 hours per week, each week during the 16 week

semester.

There is a modest $1,000 budget allotted for paper, ink, and other miscellaneous office

supply expenses for the program. With this budget, we estimate the D521 Participation Training

course to net $58,447.19 of income per academic year.

Semesters
Hourly # Total
Participation Training Expenses Taught
Wage* Hrs/AY Expense
AY
Canvas Usage
(technology -- covered by $5,796.00 2 n/a n/a $5,796.00
student fees)
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 7

Faculty Expense To
16 weeks a
Teach Class (12 2 $42.40 384 $16,283.08
semester
hrs/week)
Administrative Support 16 weeks a
2 $22.21 192 $4,264.62
Expense (6 hrs/week) semester
Office Supplies to
Support Course (paper, $1,000.00
ink, etc.)
University Marketing
(absorbed into existing $0.00 2 n/a n/a $0.00
marketing)

Total Expenses Per Academic Year for the Participation Training Program $27,343.69

Program Evaluation Methods and Strategies

There are many theories and models for program evaluation. Some models are integrated

into planning models, while others are designed conceptually for use either in a continuous

improvement process, often called formative evaluation, or making judgements about

a program’s value, called summative evaluation (Merrill & Young, 2012, p.18). Ninety percent

of the D521 Participation Training course is already implemented online, negating a large

portion of planning and implementation that would be typical of most courses. The need to

transition the remaining 10% of the in-class requirement is comprised of unique components,

specifically as this remaining portion requires interactive conversation with multiple learners in

varying roles.

Summative evaluation would be most appropriate for determining whether the

implementation of this in class portion was successfully transferred online. This judgement

would be best made by facilitators who have worked previously during in-class training sessions.
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 8

Their prior experiences would be a benchmark to assess the effectiveness of the online

implementation.

To evaluate the online training, quantitative and qualitative data would be collected. At a

minimum, three courses would need to be assessed before determining the value of the course.

Quantitative data such as the group’s duration of creating the TGO and the amount of TGOs

created with assistance prior to the group independently creating a TGO would need to be

tracked. The facilitator would be consulted as an expert for the role of evaluations to answer the

aforementioned data points. This data would be collected through performance reviews through

the use of checklists and rating scales.

Qualitative data would be based from the vantage point of learners and facilitators. As the

Conference tool allows recording of the video stream, observations could occur to allow notes to

be taken of engagement and participation rates of learners. Surveys would be implemented to

gain feedback from the facilitator’s experience, and there would be a comparison between the

flow of the TGO process online to in-class sessions. Surveys would allow the collection of data

from learners regarding their experience on cooperating via live stream and their experiences

within the course.

These techniques would best be used under a developmental evaluation approach, as the

basis of the course should remain intact. The transition should be evaluated on allowing learners

to create these vital synchronous interactions while retaining their distance. According to

Caffarella & Daffron (2013, p.233 ), “Program evaluation is most often defined as a process used

to determine whether the design and delivery of a program were effective and whether planned

evaluations are important, so are developmental evaluations and more information and

unplanned evaluation activities.” The planner must allow the effectiveness to be determined
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 9

through the voice of the learners and facilitator. The feedback given will support the viability for

the online implementation.

Conclusion

Transitioning courses primarily conducted as in-class sessions to online format is a multi-

faceted duty requiring planners to know their audience which includes the institutions and

learners to be served, determining the planning team’s access and capabilities, funding

requirements, the developmental process, and determining the course efficiency. The

implementation of online courses and certificates deters barriers and limitations of access.

According to Merrill & Young (2012, p.1) “These technologies provide a critical connection

between schools and the outside world. The learners at multiple sites and allow valuable

educational resources to be shared, thus providing opportunities not otherwise available.” Further

transitioning of courses to an online format is pertinent to creating longevity within educational

institutions.
MCWHITBRIT PROGRAM PROPOSAL 10

References

Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed.) Athabasca,

Canada: University of Athabasca.

Caffarella, R. S., & Daffron, S. R. (2013). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical

guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dabbagh, N. (2007). The Online Learner: Characteristics and Pedagogical

Implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217-

226.

Indiana University. (2020). Financial management services. Retrieved from

https://ops.fms.iu.edu/psgi/Salary

Indiana University. (2020). MoneySmarts. Retrieved from https://moneysmarts.iu.edu/calculate-

costs/

Merrill, H. & Young, J. (2012). Distance learning: A guide to system planning and

implementation (5th ed.) Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.

Price, D. (2018, March 23). Laziness does not exist. Medium. Retrieved from

https://humanparts.medium.com/laziness-does-not-exist-3af27e312d01

Rovai, A. & Downey, J. (2009). Why some distance education programs fail while others

succeed in a global environment. The Internet and Higher Education. 13(3), 141-147.

Ruby, A. (2005). Reshaping the University in an Era of Globalization. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3),

233–236.