Based on the concept of providing faculty members with a personalized, individualized environment that allows them to connect and collaborate with others, National University drew faculty to a single platform to engage in collaborative discussions around technology use, teaching and learning challenges and solutions, and scholarly activity. By exposing faculty to a single community in which they all belong and that is full of resources and guidance for interacting with one another, National was able to exchange ideas and grow the practice in new ways. At the same time, faculty could participate in independent communities, private to a subset of users, to drill into more specific topical areas or resource needs. Faculty also created personal profiles that were shared only among the National faculty so they could connect and network with one another even outside the context of a community. As a next phase, more individual communities and areas for collaboration will be created, as well as the continued addition of new resources and events available for participation.

The initial findings of this study are complex. In addition to answering the original research question which was the focus of this investigation, the unanticipated secondary findings are worthy of their own mention and brief discussion. The primary findings directly answering the original research topic, although in line with the secondary findings, are divergent at best. The primary findings indicate that the instructors experienced different levels of ¡°success¡± (as they perceived their experience with their individual students) based on which technologies are chosen for each role the instructor inhabits during the interaction. The similarities of replies suggest that there does appear to be a consensus to the implementation of how to align the approach with instructional technologies. However, what seems to be lacking in this consensus is the why and when. This indicates that the technology is not an obstacle in and of itself in the transactional distance classroom, and that there is a fundamental understanding of its potential overall usefulness among the participants surveyed. However, the results show an overwhelming variance of the specifics of why and when the components of implementation and utilization are executed in order to meet a specific and targeted need. There was no general consensus for either of these issues. Major findings that were a product of the questions, but were wholly unanticipated, included the apparent discovery that technologies currently in the higher education system are being mostly ignored, and at best underutilized, by both the faculty and the students. These technologies come as part of prepackaged Learning Management Systems (LMS) or Course Management Systems (CMS) and are often sold in multiyear, and extremely high cost, packages. Examples of these systems include: Blackboard, Wimba, Elluminate, Angel, and a wide variety of in-house systems created by individual universities. While this comes as little to no surprise to many faculty and administrative members in the survey, what does seem to distinguish this from random personal preference issues is high (72%) preference of both faculty and students who prefer using the telephone. However, when examining the population range of 32 to 81 years, with an average age of 49, it becomes apparent that the majority of the participants fall within the age demographic of a digital immigrant, which may account for the technology preference. I anticipate that the results of the study done on the students for SER 2.0, defined as digital natives, will result in an entirely different outcome regarding technology preferences. The findings indicate that although the LMS and CMS.s include a variety of options for synchronous and asynchronous communication, there is not full implementation or mandated (whether implied or inferred) usage of these tools by the administrators. Additionally, there is not a mandatory or voluntary implementation of these tools in the classroom by the faculty, nor is there an apparent outcry for usage by the students. What this initially indicates is that although these tools are being purchased at great cost, and there is a wide pool from which to choose the means of communication, their usage is minimal. The secondary unanticipated findings of this research involve the impact of certain technology utilizations that are dependent solely upon the role of the instructor in the immediate time and space of communication interaction. The technologies that appeared to have the greatest impact in connection with various roles were: the telephone, e-mail, chat, and bulletin boards. As shown in the IER 1.0, the technology shown as most impactful with each role that the instructor inhabits is instrumental in the self-efficaciousness of the student. Although the title of the instructor remains constant in the transactional distance environment, the role that the singular instructor executes is fluid but dependent upon the varying situation at any given time. Each of these roles has been shown to have specific, and varying, impacts on the academic success of the student in direct relation to that instructional delivery methodology. Several supplementary findings to the original research question became apparent by Rounds 2 and 3 of the Delphi Survey. During Round 2, findings demonstrated that the definitions of the various components of transactional distance were beyond the scope of the majority of the participants. Although every effort was made to provide clarification, supplemental materials for examination, and working definitions, the feedback received (both during and after the study) indicated that the research concept was beyond the scope of some of the participants. experiences and expertise. This is noteworthy for the primary reason that the criteria for study participation was stringent and the pool of individuals invited to participate were all regarded as highly educated and area specific experts in the field of distance education. This disconnect demonstrated an apparent lack of a common knowledge base within the field of experts. The supplementary findings of Round 3 were somewhat unusual as well. Round 3of this study focused on the roles of the faculty in the transactional distance classroom and how those roles are, and could be, utilized to develop and meet the self-effacious behaviors of the student. Again, there appeared to be little consensus on this topic as the results were wide and scattered. What did appear to be overwhelming in this round was a general belief that the instructor is not responsible for structuring the transactional classroom to meet such needs. Although the desire for a rubric was acknowledged by over 78% of the participants, only 46% indicated that they would potentially implement such a rubric into their classroom. These data was in close alignment with the 70% and 40% dropout rates found by Keane and Irvin in 2010. This suggests that while there is broad acknowledgment of need, there is little interest or understanding of the steps towards implementation. With regard to transactional distance, there appears to be a uniform strength in the utilization of chosen technology tools employed by each participant in the study there also appears to be no consensus of best practices that address the needs of the learner. The gap that appeared in the data collection, via data and/or comment feedback (Appendix G ) and indicated that there was an apparent knowledge and awareness disconnect occurring at the administrative level of program development. This leads to questions regarding both the concept of transactional distance in an operational capacity as well as questions surrounding the need to recognize the foundational necessity for such understanding. Therefore, it appears that although tools are being selected, and randomly implemented, there is not an overwhelming sense of coordination and direction regarding the basics (much less the needs) of transactional distance methodologies in this environment. This then brings forth the questions of the student.s ability to become self-effacious in these environments as follows: 1) Do the experts believe they are already doing what is being proposed by the study? 2) Are the experts unaware of such concepts in their transactional classrooms? 3) Is the resistance to such a rubric an exhaustive reflex to change? 4) What other tools besides a rubric might better match the participants needs? These questions will be explored during the greater discussion of findings and a post research literature analysis.

There are approximately 15,000 students -- most of whom are of college age -- in NYC transfer schools, which serve students who have left or failed to make progress at traditional high schools and have returned to re-engage with their education and earn a high school diploma. So far, more than 2,000 transfer students have enrolled in an innovative new course that cultivates digital literacy skills they need for college, career, and life beyond high school. The program is experienced through a badge-empowered learning environment that heightens motivation, encourages and rewards persistence, infuses game mechanics, and provides a relevant context in which to learn how Internet literacy and media production skills can directly enrich their lives. The online course is called DIG/IT (“dig it”), and it awards digital badges for evidence of skill development as well as contributions to the community that support peer learning. The same principles and mechanics can be applied to higher education populations to increase student engagement and persistence.

The Journal of Instructional Research (JIR) is an annual publication by the Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching at Grand Canyon University that highlights faculty research relevant to best practices in post-secondary instruction. Unique to JIR is the use of a two-stage evaluation process with public peer review, interactive discussion and, for interested authors, final formalized peer review. The overarching goal of JIR is to allow SoTL researchers an opportunity for public review of their work to promote innovative, quality research examining post-secondary teaching and learning. Through the public review process, authors receive feedback to allow them to revise their research prior to submitting for publication. Using the information from the public review, authors can revise their work to submit either to JIR for publication consideration or they may elect to submit to another publication outlet. Submissions to JIR are subject to a formalized peer review to determine suitability for publication. The goals of JIR are to: Enhance understanding and application of best practices in college teaching Foster dialogue concerning innovative teaching, learning and assessment strategies Promote a scholarly approach to the practice and profession of teaching Aligned with these goals, topics to be covered in JIR include, but are not limited to: Innovative teaching methods Pedagogy Technology-mediated instruction or assessment Course design or delivery Evaluation of learning Evaluation of modes of instructional delivery Learning management systems Best practices in college teaching Student characteristics that impact teaching Scope and Focus JIR features theoretical and empirically-based research articles, critical reflection pieces, case studies, and classroom innovations relevant to best practices in post-secondary instruction (including teaching, learning and assessment). Manuscripts must be supported with theoretical justification, evidence, and/or research; qualitative and quantitative inquiry methods are appropriate. Manuscripts must be appropriately grounded within relevant literature. Target Audience Manuscripts published in JIR are relevant to a broad audience of college faculty and administrators. Readers benefiting from JIR include full-time, part-time, face-to-face, hybrid, and online faculty. As a cross-disciplinary journal, JIR emphasizes topics and articles that are generalizable across a range of disciplines. JIR Process Unique to JIR is the role of public review prior to final submission for publication consideration. As such, papers submitted to JIR will be posted on the JIR website for public discussion during one of three discussion periods; discussion periods are held in February, June and September of each year. Papers posted for discussion are NOT anonymous; in addition to the written paper, authors have the opportunity to supplement the paper with a brief presentation discussing the scope, goals and purpose of their work. Copyright information will be posted along with each paper to ensure ownership of all posted informatin. Notification of discussion periods will be openly disseminated to the broader academic community. Scholars wishing to contribute to the discussion surrounding each paper must register with JIR in order to publicly post their comments. At the conclusion of each discussion period, authors have the option of having their work removed from the website (with only the title and abstract remaining) or leaving their work archived for ongoing viewing (without the possibility of additional comments). All papers posted for discussion on JIR will have permanent, dated documentation remaining on the site. Following the discussion period, authors are encouraged to utilize the feedback from the public review in order to enhance their SoTL work. At this point, authors may elect to submit the paper for final publication consideration with JIR or they may choose to submit with another publication outlet. Papers submitted for final publication with JIR are subjected to another round of formalized peer review by anonymous reviewers. Papers accepted for final publication with JIR will appear in both the online and print version of the journal. JIR will be published annually in the spring; for publication consideration in the final JIR publication, submissions must be received by December 1. Submissions for publication consideration in JIR MUST have first been reviewed in a public format in one of the JIR discussion periods. Review Process JIR utilizes a two-stage review process that includes both public review with interactive discussion and traditional masked peer review. Manuscripts receive a desk review by the Editor to determine fit and relevance for JIR. Manuscripts that pass desk review will be posted on the journal's website for interactive public review. During the one-month interactive review stage, manuscripts are publicly available for review by the journal's peer review board as well as scholars in the broader academic community. All comments, replies and suggestions are publicly posted along with the paper during the public review stage. To ensure a permanent, documented record of review and authors' publication precedence, the title and abstract of each discussion paper will remain permanently as a public archive on the JIR website at the conclusion of the public review period. At the author's request, the entire manuscript (with corresponding comments) can be permanently archived on the JIR website. Following public review, authors have the opportunity to revise their papers based on the feedback obtained during the public review discussion. Revised papers are subjected to a traditional masked peer review to determine final acceptance for publication. Participate in the public review process does not guarantee publication; publication decisions will be based on the combined information gleaned from both the public and private review stages. Designated reviewers from the Peer Review Board will be assigned to review the discussion paper and provide feedback; reviewers may elect to sign their public comments or remain anonymous. Review Criteria The following dimensions will be utilized to evaluate manuscript submissions: Relevance - Relevance highlights the impact of the paper for influencing best practices in post-secondary instruction. Significance - Significance refers to the value, importance and worth of the manuscript within the context of higher education. Originality - Originality refers to the level of innovation in practice, approach, technique or purposeful self-reflection. Methodology - Methodology emphasizes appropriate methods of inquiry and theoretical interpretation. Generalizability - Generalizability examines the extent to which findings and conclusions have implications across a range of academic disciplines or student populations. Theoretical grounding - Theoretical grounding refers to the ability to quality of the literature review and the ability to ground manuscript within relevant literature/theory. Clarity - Clarity evaluates the ability to communicate information in a clear, cohesive fashion.

In keeping with the tenets of excellence promoted by the Sloan Consortium, our research study was developed to examine issues related to the learning effectiveness, scale, access, and faculty/student satisfaction with their online learning experience (Bishop, 2006; Sloan-C, 2012)). In further exploring the Blackboard Learn Mobile App that is used by the institution, the researchers investigated student and faculty perspectives within the context of the university’s unprecedented growth. The researchers sincerely believe that the study is original in that the data encompassed not only student perspectives, but also faculty who use the App. If the results of the study are incorporated into both the design and vision of developers, the researchers believe the range and practice of mobile learning will be improved (Swan, 2004).

The overall collaboration process focused on using Google to help the student self-edit. After seeking guidance and approval on content from mentor and coach through email and voice chat, the student used voice-to-text software to submit his drafts for review. The writing coach and mentor used Google Docs to highlight and comment on the student’s work, emphasizing his strengths. Their role was not to edit the document, but to encourage autonomy by highlighting problems like spelling or grammatical errors for him to fix on his own and notify the writing coach when complete. A conference call was then set up, involving two of the parties connecting via Google voice chat and the third participating using a speaker phone (cell or land line). This combination evolved after numerous technical glitches arose attempting a three-way Google voice chat. All team members could view the document online, make changes, and discuss them. Each participant had their own cursor to locate and edit discussed text, literally placing them on the same page making changes in full view of each other’s input. The process is comparable to having three people in the conferring in the same room, but with the ability to make changes in a single document that are automatically saved every few seconds.

The uniqueness of this first online learning conference was its intent. We felt that even though many faculty had been teaching online for several years, there was no organizing office or unified policy around online teaching at our University except those within departments and programs. Our University is beginning to focus on online programs with support and mission. It was time to describe the nature of quality online teaching for our campus by our own people with experience. We wanted to give our faculty the opportunity to have a dialogue about quality online teaching among those who have been teaching and those who are beginning to teach in this environment. The basis of teaching online is building community. This conference was meant to begin building our own campus community of online practitioners by the simple means of sharing ideas around a table and a meal. The value of the conference is that the faculty were heard and their experience validated as important information to share. The questions posed for this first Summit were:

• What shifts in practice seem most important for those new to teaching online?

• How does instructor role and identity change as one begins to transition to the online environment?

• How are notions of “teaching online” reshaping expectations for faculty workload?

• What role should professional development play in preparing faculty to teach effectively online? • What resources are necessary to best support faculty members who are in the process of making the transition to online teaching?

• What constitutes effective teaching practice in the online environment?

• What role does / should digital technology play as an element constituting effective practice online?

• How should effective or exemplary online teaching practice be demonstrated and evaluated?

• What practices are essential for supporting online learning regardless of discipline or content?

The papers presented were responses to these questions from these faculty's personal teaching experience. After the positions were presented, we spent an hour discussing them at tables. The moderators took notes. These notes will be summarized as part of the proceedings and posted to the Summit website. These Proceedings and the papers will be available for print.

Since eduKan’s courses required physically proctored exams and other gradable events such as discussion/participation groups and quizzes, they wanted a technology that could be used for all gradable events and meet the online student’s needs by keeping the experience online. eduKan wanted to find an online student ID verification solution that would not limit them to a single point in time but allow them to make student verification a continuous process. eduKan also wanted to have the ability to challenge their student’s identity randomly during each course to ensure their Academic Integrity was not being compromised by growing their online course offering and enrollment as this verification process would also work to deter students from cheating online. eduKan rolled out the BSI solution to all of their online students in May 2011 as their student ID authentication system. BioSig-ID(TM) has now replaced most of their physical proctoring, is used for all other gradable events, ensures compliance, and provides random periodic challenges to the students to deter cheating. eduKan administrators and instructors can access BSI’s audit trail and reporting tool to review student verifications, monitor re-set requests, compare success ratios to identify and confirm any suspicious activity during the verification process. The use of BioSig-ID(TM) ensures eduKan’s compliance issues are met or exceeded today and for the foreseeable future.

An example of the practice using the model of: * reviewing initial evidence * the decisions made based on the evidence * the preliminary results of the initiatives that were put into place * what changes were made based on these data after the implementation of the initiative is illustrated using a pilot project in MATH 1101 – Introduction of Mathematical Modeling where three primary areas of concern were addressed: 1) Attendance & Classroom Engagement 2) Unpreparedness of Students 3) Completion of Homework Seven section of MATH 1101 were part of the project in fall 2010 and 6 sections in spring 2011. Through the redesign of classroom lectures to make them more interactive and a homework management system, there has been an increase in the success rates for those sections and a decrease in withdrawal rates. Elements of the redesign of MATH 1101 have since been implemented in most sections of MATH 1101. It should be noted that this is but one example of how Macon State College is using data analytics for course redesign, program curriculum improvement, summplemental instruction, and to reengage student for degree completion.

Users are guided step-by-step in populating six sections: information, course objectives, course resources, course activities, policies and grades. An example syllabus is provided to model content and design best practices. Users are assisted in the development of course objectives. The tool computes a points-based grading scale from provided grading component values. Campus policies and federal laws relevant to education can be incorporated into the tool to ensure that every learner is informed of her or his institutional and legal rights.