7 July 2016 CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2016 2018 NEW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Please review the attached document and submit your proposal via email by the closing deadline of 4:00 pm EDT on 30 September 2016 (local Toronto time). Proposals will not be considered unless: Received by the date and time specified above. Received in PDF format, via email to projects@ecampusontario.ca. Submission by any other form such as facsimile or paper copy mail is not acceptable. Key Dates for Call for Proposals Process: 7 July 2016 Distribution of Call for Proposals Closing Date & Time for Submissions 30 September 2016, 4:00pm EDT All submissions must be made to projects@ecampusontario.ca Submissions that are received after the closing time will not be considered for further evaluation. No later than 23 December 2016 Member institutions to be notified of successful projects ecampusontario will not be held responsible for documents that are not submitted in accordance with the above instructions. NOTE: The funding associated with this Call for Proposals is conditional pending approval from the Ministry for Advanced Education and Skills Development.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND... 3 2. SCOPE OF WORK... 4 2.1. Project Description... 4 2.2. Funding... 6 2.3. Timeline... 6 3. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS... 8 3.1. Evaluator Selection and Process... 8 3.2. Selection Criteria... 9 4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS...10 4.1. General Overview...10 4.2. Proposal Documentation and Delivery...10 4.3. Proposal Content...10 APPENDIX A COVER PAGE AND ATTESTATION...14 APPENDIX B Rubric for evaluation of submissions: Option 1, Phase 1, New Program Development...15 APPENDIX C RUBRIC for evaluation of submissions for Option 1, Phase 2, or Option 2 Existing Program Development to Fully Online (course development)...21 APPENDIX D ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS...29 Page 2 of 29
1. BACKGROUND Targeted Funding to Grow Innovative Fully Online Programming in Ontario As a consortium of all colleges and universities in Ontario, ecampusontario is in a unique position to support institutions in their efforts to expand online offerings throughout the province, and this Call for Proposals intends to support that growth, specifically in fully online programs. A robust catalogue of fully online programs developed and delivered by Ontario institutions will better serve students and fill a growing demand for flexible, responsive learning opportunities. This demand for increased flexibility is driven by a student population that represents an incredibly diverse group of individuals, each with a distinct reason for choosing online learning in Ontario. These student groups include, but are not limited to: pre-pse students such as high school students or graduates exploring future options; students currently enrolled in a PSE institution who are interested in exploring other program options; incompletes or students who left their PSE program and are looking to complete credentials; mature or professional learners; and, PSE graduates seeking additional PSE education Despite the diversity in and among these groups, online learning provides learners with a significant advantage: flexibility of time and place. During the consultation stage of the Strategic Plan development, 78% of students indicated that they would take an online course or program to accommodate for work or other activities and 90% noted that the value of an online delivery is that it allows for control over the time and place for learning. This strategic project call for proposals represents a significant focus on the development of innovative online programming in areas of future demand across the province. It is the goal of the New Program project to allow institutions an opportunity to expand online offerings with consideration given to the following: Current and future areas of demand New packaging or delivery options for credentials Multi-institution collaborative development and/or delivery of fully online programming that addresses an area of demand; including interdisciplinary approaches to new offerings Collaboration in program delivery would further enhance the benefit to students by providing more options for flexible learning as well as enabling innovative delivery approaches and interdisciplinary curriculum designs. For institutions, collaboration provides an opportunity to share resources and leverage the expertise of a partner institution. By providing funding to support and encourage these particular areas of innovation, ecampusontario intends to support the sector in meeting the needs of tomorrow s learner. Page 3 of 29
This Program Development Call for Proposals is one of three Calls being distributed to member institutions in July 2016. The other two calls, distributed separately, are for proposals in Course Development and Open Content Initiatives. 2. SCOPE OF WORK Overview 2.1. Project Description The New Program Development strategic project seeks to fund proposals that address one or more of the following goals: to provide online learning opportunities for learners in new/future areas of demand; and/or, to support new online packaging or online delivery options for credentials to meet the needs of tomorrow s learner (accustomed to the web delivering what they want, when and how they want it); and/or, to support multi-institution collaborative development and/or delivery of fully online programming that might facilitate student mobility, and addresses an area of demand, including interdisciplinary approaches to new offerings. Definitions Fully Online: students should be able to complete the majority of requirements for the program within their local community. Some limited in-person learning or assessment options may be necessary to ensure integrity and rigor of the learning (e.g. a face-toface invigilated exam or other in-person assessment such as a practical exam), or other offline experiences that have a demonstrable benefit to student learning within the context of the subject matter (e.g. experiential learning, practicum, field-based learning, practical experience, etc.). Strong justification for the necessity of these activities should be included in the rationale for the project, and indication of how students will be able to achieve them within their community. Program: a set of courses that result in a full credential (undergraduate or graduate; certificate, diploma, or degree) Course: a unit of instruction that includes (but is not limited to) a defined set of intended learning outcomes, content, activities and assessments; for the purposes of this Call for Proposals, course size is assumed to be one term, approximately 30-45 hours of instruction Eligible projects Institutions may submit proposals to develop a brand new program, delivered fully online (Option 1), and may choose to complete only the design and approvals activities prior to March 2018 (part one), or may choose to achieve design and approval, plus develop some of the courses for the new program prior to March 2018 (part one plus part two). Institutions may Page 4 of 29
alternatively submit proposals to convert an existing program to a fully online delivery format (Option 2). Option 1: New program (not currently available in any format), offered fully online (undergraduate or graduate; certificate, diploma, or degree). The program will need to be eligible for appropriate Ministry approval; courses must be Ministry-funded as a minimum threshold in the college sector. 1 Part One, New Program Design Proposal: In order to create a brand new program, significant work is required before course development can begin. It is anticipated that Part 1 activity will include curriculum development, mapping program-level learning outcomes, developing course lists and descriptions, seeking program approvals etc. Collaboration in development and/or delivery of the program is encouraged and would represent further work to develop and coordinate. Funding is available to a maximum of $100,000 to support Part 1 (new program design) work. Proponents may determine that only this Part 1 activity is achievable before March 2018. Part Two, New Program Design plus Course Development: Proponents may alternatively decide that it is feasible to complete all the groundwork for new program design (all of the Part 1 work) and develop at least some of the online courses before March 2018. In this scenario proponents will be expected to articulate work for both Part 1 and Part 2 in their proposal to the extent possible; however, the flow of funding for Part 2 work (course development) will be dependent on deliverables from Part 1 as an Interim Report. Option 2: Convert Existing Program to online delivery format (e.g., moving an existing inclass program to an online delivery format; an accelerated online delivery model, etc.). In this option, it is anticipated that the majority of the activity will be focused on developing online versions of existing courses. It is possible that some courses already exist in an online format, and the proposal maps out the work to complete development such that the full program is available online. Collaboration in development and/or delivery of the program is encouraged and would represent further work to develop and coordinate. Francophone institutions are encouraged to apply and collaborate with other French and/or English speaking institutions. Multi-year projects are expected (2016-17 and 2017-18). Note: Only Ontario s publicly-assisted colleges and universities are eligible to apply for funding. Please see Appendix D for a complete list of eligible institutions. 1 College Certificates (as opposed to Ontario College Certificates) are typically comprised of Ministryfunded courses, while the credentials themselves do not require Ministry approval. These credentials are part of the College Credential Framework. Page 5 of 29
All program development projects funded through this Call for Proposals are subject to the Ministry for Advanced Education and Skills Development program approvals process, as applicable to that sector. 2.2. Funding There is a total of $21,050,000 available over two fiscal years (2016-17 and 2017-18) to fund two significant strategic project areas: Open Content Initiatives (see separate Call for Proposals) and New Program Development. This includes a minimum of $1,000,000 in funding over the two years for French-language projects. Funds will be distributed across these two strategic project areas according to demand demonstrated through project proposals. Maximum funding per New Program Development project: Option 1 (New Program) o Up to $60,000 for a single institution proposal, Part One, New Program Design; up to $20,000 additional funding for each additional collaborating institution, to a maximum of $100,000 for Part One, New Program Design o Up to $50,000 maximum per course to be developed for a program Option 2 (Existing Program to fully online) o Up to $50,000 maximum per course to be developed for a program o Additional project management costs are permitted for multi-institution proposals, to a maximum of $60,000 per project 2.3. Anticipated Timeline It is expected that work for stated deliverables will be completed across two fiscal years (2016-17 and 2017-18). Institutions will be expected to meet deliverables in both fiscal years, as appropriate, and payments will be made in up to four installments: 1. Signed Agreement 2. Reporting Period 1 3. Reporting Period 2 4. Reporting Period 3: Final Report Projects may be concluded with a final report in any one of the Reporting Periods. Receipt of a Final Report at any stage will trigger a payment of remaining funds to institutions. Due to the diversity of project proposals expected, ecampusontario anticipates that New Program Development projects may have 3-4 report and payment periods. If a project phase spans fiscal years (as shown by Phase Two in visual example below) budget for that phase will be attributed to the 2016-17 fiscal year so long as all work for that phase (i.e. Phase Two) will be completed by September 2017. It is not required that a proposed program be fully developed for online delivery within the time available in this Call for Proposals cycle (i.e., by March 2018). However, if more time and budget will be required beyond March 2018 to complete development of the fully online Page 6 of 29
program, the proposal must articulate the institutional plan and commitment to complete the work and deliver the program online. It may be that further funding will be available beyond March 2018, thus it is acceptable for an institution(s) to describe two planning horizons (i.e., Plan A time to completion with further external funding, and Plan B time to completion without further external funding). The following provides a visual representation of the reporting cycle for a three-phase project which spans the 2016-17 and 2017-18 fiscal years. This visual representation is provided as an example. Project Phase Fiscal Year Reporting and Payment Phase One Phase Two (may be attributable to Fiscal 16-17) Phase Three FISCAL 2016-17 (June 2016 March 2017) FISCAL 2017-18 (April 2017 March 2018) Signed Agreement Payment to institution (e.g. 60% of total budget) Reporting Period 1 (Interim) Payment to institution (e.g. 15% of total budget) Reporting Period 2 (Interim or Final) Payment to institution (e.g. 15% of total budget) Reporting Period 3 (Final Report) Payment to institution (e.g. 10% of total budget) The following table provides an estimate of the project timeline and may be subject to change depending on number of submissions received and agreements with institutions. Anticipated Timing Description 7 July 2016 ecampusontario distributes Call for Proposals to all publiclyassisted Ontario colleges and universities July September Member institutions develop proposals according to the criteria and 2016 requirements outlined ecampusontario compiles slate of evaluators (from Ontario colleges & universities; online learning experts as well as broad range of discipline expertise) 30 September 2016 Proposals submitted; catalogued by ecampusontario; evaluation process begins October 2016 Proposals are evaluated according to rubric provided Page 7 of 29
November December 2016 ecampusontario records and sorts all scores received, identifies projects to maximum available funding to present to Board for approval January 2017 ecampusontario notifies member institutions of successful projects; agreements between ecampusontario and institutions developed and signed First Payment: Percentage of funding disbursed upon receipt of signed agreement 31 March 2017 Reporting Period 1 (Interim Report) April 2017 Second Payment: Percentage of funding disbursed if Interim report received 30 September 2017 Reporting Period 2 (Interim or Final Report) October 2017 Third Payment: Percentage of funding disbursed if Interim or Final report received 31 March 2018 Reporting Period 3 (Final Report) April 2018 Fourth Payment: Remainder of funding disbursed if Final Report received 3. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS 3.1. Evaluator Selection and Evaluation Process Once ecampusontario has received proposal submissions from institutions, the following steps will be taken: 1. ecampusontario will enter receipt of all proposals and check for completeness (all mandatory submission requirements have been met), and duplication of funding. Note: In support of the Ministry s expectation for non-duplication in funded projects, ecampusontario will not award funding for a course that overlaps significantly with a course funded in previous years of the Shared Online Course Fund (2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016), nor one that has received funding from ONCAT during the same timeframe. If a potential program duplication is found, it will be noted with the submission and sent on for evaluation (institutions are required to provide justification for duplication as part of their proposal submission) 2. Proposals will be sent to evaluators for scoring against provided rubric (see Appendix B and Appendix C) a. A minimum of two evaluators will review each proposal. b. For any proposal that involves collaboration across the college and university sectors, one evaluator will be from the college sector, and one evaluator will be from the university sector. c. Where possible, one evaluator will have discipline knowledge in broad alignment with the proposal (for example, a social work proposal will be reviewed by an evaluator from the Social Sciences). d. Where possible, one evaluator will have expertise in online learning. Page 8 of 29
3.2. Selection Criteria: Option 1, Part One, New Program Design Once evaluators have scored proposals using the criteria outlined in the appropriate evaluation rubric (see Appendix B) the following weighting will be applied: Criteria Weight Impact and Collaboration 60% Quality 20% Project Plan & Budget 20% 3.3. Selection Criteria: Option 1, Part 2 (Course Development), AND Option 2 (Existing Program to Fully Online) Once evaluators have scored proposals using the criteria outlined in the appropriate evaluation rubric (see Appendix C) the following weighting will be applied: Criteria Weight Impact and Collaboration 40% Quality 40% Project Plan & Budget 20% If proposals are received that would be substantively the same, only one proposal will be funded the one receiving the higher score (assuming it meets the criteria of the call). Criteria for funding A detailed scoring rubric can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C 1. Proposed new program must be in an area of demand a. New programs should address an area of unmet demand or potential demand based on future careers/labor market needs b. The program, delivered online, might address under-served populations including, but not limited to learners who need to upgrade qualifications, Francophones, or new Canadians. 2. It is possible that an existing program may only be partially available online and a collaborative proposal could be submitted to complete the delivery format to fully online. 3. Justifiable duplication permitted with clear rationale a. If the proposed project seeks to create a fully online program that is already offered in a fully online format in Ontario (see ecampusontario.ca Program Search), the proposal must identify these existing online programs and make clear the justification for creating this new online version (such as compelling evidence of unmet demand, or new fully online packaging to provide novel delivery of an existing program, e.g., program laddering, accelerated delivery, alternative pathway, alternate revenue and cost-sharing options between institutions, etc.) 4. Collaboration is encouraged a. Collaboration may be in development of the program and/or delivery of the program Page 9 of 29
b. Multi-institution and cross-sector collaborations are encouraged 5. ecampusontario will not fund course or program development which is exclusively a costrecovery initiative for institutions. The program will need to be eligible for appropriate Ministry approval; courses must be Ministry-funded as a minimum threshold in the college sector. If proposals for New Program Development are received that would be substantively the same, only one proposal will be funded the one receiving the higher score (assuming it meets the criteria of the call). 4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 4.1. General Overview Proposals must address the Call for Proposals content requirements, as outlined herein, must be well ordered, detailed and comprehensive. Clarity of language, adherence to suggested structuring, and adequate accessible documentation is essential to evaluators ability to conduct a thorough evaluation. ecampusontario is interested in proposals that demonstrate broad value and impact for the Ontario post-secondary sector. 4.2. Proposal Documentation and Delivery The documentation for each Proposal: a. Must be submitted via email to projects@ecampusontario.ca (submission by any other form such as facsimile or paper copy mail will not be accepted). b. Proposal must be in PDF format c. Mandatory Components: i. Appendix A (Cover Page and Attestation) completed and signed by a representative at the Vice-President Academic level ii. Main Proposal Document as described in Section 4.3 below titled Proposal Content 4.3. Proposal Content The proposal should contain the following items and have the same order and numbering scheme as set out below (see appropriate rubric, Appendix B and Appendix C, for guidance and further detail). Institutions may submit proposals for any of the following three scenarios: I. Option 1, Part One (New Program Design) New program, offered fully online (activities such as curriculum development, mapping program-level learning outcomes, developing course lists and descriptions, seeking program approvals etc.). Page 10 of 29
II. Option 1, Part One + Part Two (New Program Design plus Course Development) New program, offered fully online (all above activities plus development of some or all of the fully online courses for the program). III. Option 2 (Convert Existing Program to Online Delivery) New fully online delivery format for an existing program (development of online versions of existing courses for some or all program requirements). I. Option 1, Part One New program design a. Working program title and description b. Evidence to support need or potential demand for new program c. If applicable, include justification for duplication of an existing fully online program offered by one of Ontario s publicly-assisted colleges or universities d. Description of intended credential type, pathway, novel format or delivery approach e. If applicable, identification of initial collaborative partners: intended role of each institution or academic department, including written commitment to pursue potential new program, signed by appropriate academic leaders (Department Chair, Dean, VP) f. Description of approaches to be used and team member roles to be included in the program development work to ensure quality of the deliverables and, ultimately, the program g. Identification of approvals that are required; planned timeline for process and steps to launch of program. h. Preliminary list of required and optional courses; and, if applicable, identification of existing online courses and additional courses to be developed II. Option 1, Part One + Part Two New program design plus course development a. All above requirements; plus b. Course development proposals for achievable set of courses (if appropriate, by each institutional partner) to be completed by end of March 2018 i. Course title and description ii. Roles and responsibilities of individuals who will be involved in the design and development, such as an instructional designer, multimedia developer, librarian, editor, and subject matter experts (individual names are not required, just roles). Include evidence related to successful experience with online pedagogy or online teaching and learning. c. Approaches to be used to ensure quality of student learning experience, including accessibility, in developed courses. Proposal should include clearly defined proposed high level learning outcomes or competencies. d. Proposals should include evidence of institutional support for quality student learning experience, including but not limited to: i. ongoing support for instructors ii. academic and technical supports for students learning online and at a distance iii. strategies for accommodating high demand / high enrolments Page 11 of 29
iv. plan for ongoing evaluation of student satisfaction, effectiveness of pedagogical and delivery approaches v. plan for ongoing maintenance of content currency e. Rationale regarding any use of innovative technologies, pedagogies and approaches f. Timeline for implementation: course development plans; when sufficient courses will exist to enable first intake of students, etc. (this plan may extend beyond March 2018) g. Program approvals in place, or in progress (e.g., within institution; MTCU; any relevant accreditation body such as PEQAB and OUCQA) III. Option 2 New fully online delivery format for an existing program a. Title and description of program b. Evidence to support need or potential demand for program delivered fully online c. Identification of collaborative partners (other institutions or academic departments), if applicable, and their roles; sustainability of collaboration; written commitment of appropriate academic leaders (Department Chair, Dean, VP) d. Description of credential type, pathway, novel format or delivery approach e. Evaluation plans (e.g., success of collaborative approach, delivery format; plan for ongoing evaluation of student satisfaction, achievement of learning outcomes; plan for maintenance of program currency; etc.) f. List of required and optional courses; identification of any existing online courses and additional courses to be developed g. Timeline for implementation: course development plans; when sufficient online courses will exist to enable first intake of students to online program, etc. (this plan may extend beyond March 2018) h. Course development proposals for achievable set of courses (if appropriate, by each institutional partner) to be completed by end of March 2018 i. Course title and description ii. Roles and responsibilities of individuals who will be involved in the design and development, such as an instructional designer, multimedia developer, librarian, editor, and subject matter experts (individual names are not required, just roles). Include evidence related to successful experience with online pedagogy or online teaching and learning. iii. Clearly defined proposed learning outcomes or competencies, and proposed approaches to assessing learning i. Clearly described process for and approach to ensuring quality in online courses that will be included in the program j. Rationale regarding any use of innovative technologies, pedagogies and approaches; must articulate strategies to ensure AODA-compliance, copyright compliance, and usability of developed courses k. Proposals should include evidence of institutional support for quality student learning experience, including but not limited to: i. ongoing support for instructors ii. academic and technical supports for students learning online and at a distance iii. strategies for accommodating high demand / high enrolments Page 12 of 29
iv. plan for ongoing evaluation of student satisfaction, effectiveness of pedagogical and delivery approaches v. plan for ongoing maintenance of content currency All Proposals: Budget All proposals (New Program or New Online Delivery of Existing Program) must include a clearly articulated budget that is understandable, appropriate to the priorities of the project, and with enough detail to provide clarity about how and when funds will be used. a. For each of the roles to be involved in the project (subject matter expert, instructional designer, project manager, etc.), provide FTE percentage for each phase of the project, and rate/cost b. Provide information about any other direct and in-kind costs included in the project c. Administrative overhead is an eligible expense, to a maximum of 2% of the total budget; high-level breakdown of these expenses is required d. Be clear about when project work/phases will occur; note that expenses for components of project work that begin prior to 31 March 2017, and will be completed by 30 September 2017 can be attributed to the 2016-17 fiscal year. Any work that begins after 1 April 2017 will be attributed to the 2017-18 fiscal year. e. Be prepared to provide evidence of expenditures in the event of a Ministry audit (e.g., records of salary expenses, etc.) Note that proposal must acknowledge institutional responsibility for ongoing delivery and maintenance costs. Page 13 of 29
APPENDIX A COVER PAGE AND ATTESTATION To be completed, signed by a Vice-President Academic and included as first page of proposal submission. A Word version will be provided. Program Title Project Type (select one) Discipline / Subject Area Option 1 (new program) Option 2 (existing program to be developed for online delivery) Collaborators (list all institutions and/or departments, if applicable) Lead Institution Lead Contact Multi-year (Y/N)? Total Budget Request Project Description (maximum 250 words) Name: Position: Email: Phone Number: Yes No 2016-17 Budget: 2017-18 Budget: Total Project Budget: Attestation for New Program Development Project I attest that this proposal adheres to the requirements as set out in the Request for Proposals for New Program Development. 1) This is a proposal to create a program that will be made available fully online according to the timeline articulated herein. 2) Course offerings will adhere to all appropriate legislation, including the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Canadian Copyright Act 3) This proposal is collaborative a. Between a College and a University b. Between institutions in the same sector (e.g. College College) c. Between departments within an institution Page 14 of 29
APPENDIX B RUBRIC for evaluation of submissions: Option 1, Part 1, New Program Design Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring Impact and Collaboration (60%) Evidence to support need or potential demand for new program Proposal includes any existing evidence of demand, or unmet demand in proposed program area. This could include under-served populations, e.g., learners that wish to upgrade qualifications, Francophones, new Canadians, etc. Proposal includes plan to confirm any existing evidence of demand. Proposal includes plan to confirm expectations, if appropriate, regarding market demand and/or future career projections Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides credible evidence of expected need (e.g., scale of unmet demand; anticipated future market demand; how program will meet specific needs of underserved populations; etc.). Plan clearly articulated to confirm demand expectations with market or future career research, if appropriate. Excellent (6-8 pts): Plan to gather evidence to confirm demand with market/future career research is moderately articulated; program addresses under-served populations. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Minimal planning articulated to gather evidence to confirm demand with market/future career research; program somewhat addresses under-served populations. Justification for duplication of an existing fully online program offered by one of Ontario s publicly-assisted colleges or universities [Note: remove this score from total if not applicable] New packaging of credential to enable greater student flexibility (e.g., accelerated completion, laddering or pathway between credentials) New area of focus or major Evidence of unmet demand Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal does not articulate a plan to confirm demand with market/future career research; program does not address under-served populations. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal identifies and describes duplicate program before providing a strong argument to justify proposed new program development. Rationale includes, for example, new or innovative packaging of credential to enable student flexibility, a new area of focus or major, or evidence of unmet demand, etc. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal identifies duplicate program but does not demonstrate a strong knowledge of program requirements and therefore presents a weaker argument for duplication. Some rationale articulated, such as new or innovative packaging or a credential, a new area of focus or major, or evidence of unmet demand. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal names duplicate but does not provide description of program requirements resulting in a weak argument for Page 15 of 29
Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring duplication. Brief rationale is noted, such as a new area of focus or major, but little detail provided. Description of intended credential type, pathway, novel format or delivery approach Identification of initial collaborative partners Proposed program explores innovative and/or flexible credential delivery (e.g., program laddering, pathways between credentials such as between college and university, accelerated completion options, etc.) Proposed program is fully online and requires minimal geographic obligations. Proposal describes any planned innovative pedagogical approaches or technologies to be explored. Collaboration between an Ontario college and an Ontario university (cross-sector) Collaboration between two or more Ontario colleges or two or more Ontario universities Collaboration involving two or more academic departments within a single institution Incomplete (0-1 pts): Duplicate is not identified or is simply noted iwht no rationale articulated. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposed program is fully online and does not include any geographical barriers for the student; proposal may include intent to offer innovative and/or flexible credential delivery (such as accelerated completion options, laddering or stacked credentials, etc); proposal describes plan to explore specific pedagogical approach and/or innovative technologies, as applicable. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposed program includes some planned geographical (in-person) requirements that may pose barriers to students however, a strong justification for the necessity of all inperson activities is provided; proposal may include intent to offer innovative and/or flexible credential delivery; proposal suggests intended pedagogical approach or technologies to be explored. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposed program includes some planned geographical (in-person) barriers and little justification is provided for in-person requirements; proposal does not address innovative and/or flexible credential delivery, pedagogy, or technology. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposed program does not meet the definition of fully online as provided in the RFP. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Program involves future collaboration between three or more institutions, across or between college and university sectors; commitment of appropriate institutional leaders is articulated in writing; role and responsibility of each partner is clearly defined Excellent (6-8 pts): Program involves future collaboration between two institutions, across or between college and university sectors; commitment of appropriate institutional leaders in articulated in Page 16 of 29
Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring Quality (20%) Description of approaches to be used and team member roles to be included in the program development work to ensure quality of the deliverables and, ultimately, the program Identification of courses to be completed within this time frame; including approaches to be Proposal should include written commitment to collaboratively pursue potential new program, signed by appropriate academic leaders (Department Chair, Dean, VP) Roles and responsibilities of partners are defined. Proposal clearly describes approaches to be taken to ensure quality in the design and development of the program to meet identified needs Proposal clearly describes the roles of team members to be involved in development of the program plan (e.g., curriculum developer, subject matter experts, market researcher, institutional analysis and planning, etc.) Proposed course development projects are realistic and achievable in the time available. Proposal clearly describes roles of individuals to be involved in design, development, and writing; role and responsibility of each partner is outlined, but some detail is missing Acceptable (2-5 pts): Program involves collaboration between two or more academic units within a single institution; commitment of department heads is articulated in writing; proposal includes a highlevel breakdown of roles of each partner, but no clear breakdown of responsibilities provided Incomplete (0-1 pts): No collaboration is planned. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides description of the intended approach to ensure quality in the design and development of the program to meet identified needs, including roles of team members, intended pedagogical approach for the program, and any innovative technologies to be explored. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides some description of the intended approach to ensure quality in the design and development of the program; roles of team members are listed; some information is provided regarding pedagogy and/or technologies. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides minimal description of the intended process to ensure quality in the design and development of the program, and minimal description of those who will be involved. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal provides little to no description of the process for and approach to ensuring quality in design and development of the program. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides description of the intended approach to ensure quality in the design, development, and for the delivery of online courses that will be included in the program, including roles of team members, intended pedagogical approaches, planned usability testing, and any innovative technologies to be used. Page 17 of 29
Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring used to ensure quality of student learning experience [Note: remove this score from total if no course development is anticipated pre- March 2018] delivery (e.g., instructional designer, subject matter experts, librarian, multimedia developer) Proposal describes plan for testing usability and AODA compliance Proposal describes any planned innovative pedagogical approaches or technologies to be explored for delivery. Planned course development projects are realistic and achievable in the time available. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides some description of the intended approach to ensure quality in the design, development, and for the delivery of online courses that will be included in the program; roles of team members are listed; some information is provided regarding pedagogy and AODA compliance. Planned course development projects appear to be achievable in the time available. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides minimal description of the intended process to ensure quality in the design and development of online courses that will be included in the program. AODA compliance is assured with no plan articulated to demonstrate how this will be achieved. Concerns exist about achievability of planned course development projects. Project Plan and Budget (20%) Identification of approvals that are required; planned timeline for process and steps to launch of program, including preliminary list of required and optional courses Proposal includes plan for completion of approval process within the institution, Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, if necessary, and any relevant accreditation body (such as PEQAB and OUCQA). Proposal includes a high-level timeline for launch of the program, including course development, with clearly defined targets Proposal identifies any existing online courses and additional courses to be developed for program Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal provides little to no description of the process for and approach to ensuring quality in design, development, or delivery of online courses to be developed. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal articulates comprehensive plan to develop all necessary requirements for program approval by appropriate body (e.g., Institutional Board, Senate, Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, and any relevant accreditation body). Proposal suggests how the program reflects the priorities of institutional SMA(s). Proposal provides clear, achievable goals, timeline, and steps to launch the program, including preliminary list of required and optional courses, identifying those that exist and those that are expected to be developed. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal articulates a general plan to develop requirements for program approval by appropriate body, although they are not clearly specified. Proposal provides achievable timeline Page 18 of 29
Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring The budget clearly outlines cost projections and priorities of the project. The financial plan stipulates a timeline of expenses and provides detail regarding in-kind contributions. The budget is reasonable to the work proposed. Proposal suggests how the program reflects priorities of institutional SMAs The budget is easy to understand and reflects the priorities of the project For each of the roles to be involved in the project (subject matter expert, instructional designer, project manager, etc.), provide FTE percentage for each phase of the project, and rate/cost The budget identifies any other direct and inkind costs in sufficient detail to be clear The budget is clear about when project work/phases and related expenses will occur Administrative overhead, to a maximum of 2% of the total budget, is detailed and list of courses that will be part of the program, identifying those that need to be developed. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal articulates a plan to develop requirements for program approval, but many pieces are missing. Proposal provides a limited timeline for implementation; many targets are unclear or are not achievable within the timeframe. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal does not include a plan to secure necessary approvals. No timeline is provided. No course list is provided. Exceptional (9-10 pts): The budget clearly outlines cost projections and the numbers accurately reflect the priorities of the project. The budget is easy to understand and provides sufficient detail for clarity about how funds will be used. The financial plan outlines a valid timeline of expenses and provides detail regarding in-kind contributions. The budget is completely reasonable to the work proposed. Excellent (6-8 pts): The budget outlines cost projections and the numbers generally reflect the priorities of the project. The budget is clear and some level of detail is provided, but some questions remain. The financial plan provides an indication of a timeline of expenses and in-kind contributions are noted. The budget is mostly reasonable to the work proposed. Promising (2-5 pts): The budget provides some cost projections; the numbers are not entirely reflective of project priorities. The budget is difficult to understand and provides insufficient detail. The financial plan provides minimal indication of a timeline of expenses and no inkind contributions are noted. The budget is not entirely reasonable to the work outlined. Incomplete (0-1 pts): The budget does not outline cost projections and the numbers do not reflect the priorities of the project. The Page 19 of 29
Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring budget is not clear and does not provide sufficient detail. The budget is not reasonable to the work proposed. Page 20 of 29
APPENDIX C RUBRIC for evaluation of submissions for Option 1, Part 2 (course development), or Option 2 (Convert Existing Program to Online Delivery) Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring Impact and Collaboration (40%) Evidence to Proposal includes evidence of demand, or support need or unmet demand in program area that would be demand for fully met through online delivery. This could include online program under-served populations, e.g., learners that wish to upgrade qualifications, Francophones, new Canadians, etc. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides credible evidence of need (e.g., data to support scale of unmet demand; anticipated future market demand; how program offered online will meet specific needs of under-served populations; etc.). Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides some evidence to support need for program delivered online (e.g., some data indicating unmet demand or demonstrating future market need, or addressing underserved population). Description of credential type, pathway, novel format or delivery approach Justification for duplication, if applicable, of an existing fully online program offered by one of Ontario s publicly-assisted New packaging or innovative delivery of credential to enable greater student flexibility (e.g., accelerated completion, laddering or stacked credentials, or pathway between credentials such as between college and university) New area of focus or major Program is fully online and requires minimal geographic obligation. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Minimal evidence provided to demonstrate demand or future market need, such as addressing under-served population. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposal does not articulate sufficient or credible evidence of demand or need for program to be delivered online. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Program is fully online and does not include any geographical (in-person) barriers for the student; innovative and/or flexible credential delivery is clearly articulated if applicable; convincing description of innovative pedagogical approach and/or technologies used for delivery Excellent (6-8 pts): Program delivery includes some geographical (inperson) requirements that may pose barriers to students however, a strong justification for the necessity of all in-person activities is provided; innovative and/or flexible credential delivery is described if applicable; some information about innovative pedagogical approach or technology is provided. Page 21 of 29
Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring colleges or universities Description of partnerships between or within institutions are clearly articulated, including roles of partners in program development and/or delivery Proposal includes evidence of sustainable partnerships Program uses innovative pedagogical approach or technologies for delivery. Collaboration between an Ontario college and an Ontario university (cross-sector) Collaboration between two or more Ontario colleges or two or more Ontario universities Collaboration involving two or more academic departments within a single institution NOTE: Collaboration may be in the development and/or delivery of the program There is an articulated plan for collaboration beyond year 1 (e.g., ongoing collaborative delivery as opposed to just development collaboration). Planned assessment and evaluation of collaboration at defined intervals; including review of content currency Commitment of academic leadership, e.g., Department Chair(s), Dean(s), VP(s), etc. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Program delivery includes some planned geographical (in-person) barriers and little or no justification is provided; program description provides little or no detail regarding any innovative and/or flexible credential delivery, pedagogy, or technology. Incomplete (0-1 pts): Proposed program does not meet the definition of fully online as provided in the RFP. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Program involves collaboration between three or more institutions, across or within college and university sectors; involvement of each institution in development and/or delivery of the program is clearly articulated Excellent (6-8 pts): Program involves collaboration between two institutions, across or within college and university sectors; involvement of each institution in development and/or delivery of the program is clearly articulated. Acceptable (2-5 pts): Program involves collaboration between two or more academic departments within a single institution; involvement of each department in development and/or delivery of the program is clearly articulated. Incomplete (0-1 pts): No collaborations exist. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides a full description of the ongoing collaborative activities; a clear plan and timelines to review and evaluate collaborative approach and success of program, and to maintain currency of program content; commitment of academic leadership is clear and documented Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides a description of the ongoing collaborative activities; reference to review and evaluation of success of program and content maintenance; indication of commitment of academic leadership Page 22 of 29
Criteria Potential Evidence/Indicators Scoring Quality (40%) Program Curriculum Map, Program Learning Outcomes, Assessment Strategies Plan to ensure ongoing program quality Clear lines of communication (meeting plan etc.) Detailed curriculum map provided Defined learning outcomes at program and course levels May be competency-based Assessment strategies identified Proposal clearly describes approaches to be taken to ensure ongoing evaluation and renewal of program Evaluation of student success in achieving learning outcomes; student satisfaction Acceptable (2-5 pts): Proposal provides a short description of the collaboration; and/or includes a plan to support sustained collaboration with minimal detail; reference to review and evaluation with minimal detail provided; no documented evidence of commitment of academic leadership Incomplete (0-1 pts): Little to no evidence of the sustainability of collaboration is offered. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides detailed curriculum map for the program with well-defined and measurable, program-level learning outcomes or competencies; assessment strategies are clearly identified and described. Excellent (6-8 pts): Proposal provides program curriculum map with measurable, program-level learning outcomes or competencies; assessment approaches are identified and described. Acceptable (3-5 pts): Proposal provides a program curriculum map and/or learning outcomes/competencies, but only at a very high level of detail; assessment approaches are suggested but insufficient detail provided. Incomplete (0-1 pts): No curriculum map or program-level learning outcomes/competencies are described, assessment approaches are not mentioned. Exceptional (9-10 pts): Proposal provides clear and detailed description of ongoing evaluation plans to ensure student needs are being met, program and course learning outcomes achieved, currency or relevance to market, collaborative approach and delivery format are effective; plan articulates frequency of various reviews/evaluation, and description of how needed updates might be addressed. Page 23 of 29