Access and Innovation: Partnering to Train Professional Workforce Educators

Citation

Roney, D.J. and Wall Zimmerman, L. (2001), "Access and Innovation: Partnering to Train Professional Workforce Educators", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 18 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2001.23918aac.012

Access and Innovation: Partnering to Train Professional Workforce Educators

Debra J. Roney and Lesli Wall Zimmerman

Access and Innovation: Partnering to Train Professional Workforce Educators

This session presented details of an exciting partnership amongVirginia's Workforce Improvement Network (WIN), GTE Links Virginia for Literacy, and James Madison University. Their goal is to train professional workforce educators by providing access to better educational opportunities.

Virginia's Workforce Improvement Network, located at James Madison University, was founded in 1996 as a partnership between the Virginia Literacy Foundation and James Madison University. It is funded, in part, by the Virginia Department of Education and focuses on workforce improvement and adult education. The GTE Links for Literacy was initiated in 1998 through a one-time gift from GTE. The GTE Links for Literacy works with James Madison University, George Mason University, Old Dominion University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) to harness the power of technology to advance basic skills and workforce development throughout the Commonwealth. Through this consortium, business and education leaders, along with GTE executives, are planning for the future.

The teamwork between public and private interests resulted in the Workforce Development Campus (WDC), which includes a curriculum for moving "learners" from welfare or unemployment to the workplace. This program offers instruction in workforce development that can lead to certification; following the training, certified participants may eventually serve as workplace evaluators, consultants, program or curriculum developers, and literacy program professionals or volunteers. The content of the online Workforce Development Campus includes seven topics, consisting of 29 instructional modules; the topics included:

1. 1.

   introduction to workforce education;

2. 2.

   marketing workplace education programs;

3. 3.

   planning and designing workplace programs;

4. 4.

   organizational assessment in workforce education;

5. 5.

   curriculum development in workforce programs;

6. 6.

   instruction in workforce education programs; and

7. 7.

   programs evaluation in workforce education.

As representatives of these alliances, the speakers for this session included: Diane Foucar-Szocki, Director of Virginia's Workforce Improvement Network; Julia D. Harbeck, Instructional Technologist; and Sharon P. Pitt, Director, Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. The three representatives are from James Madison University.

The first presenter, Diane Foucar-Szocki, established that the demand for adult education in the American workplace far exceeds the supply of professional workforce educators. Moreover, low unemployment rates and the inability to capitalize on technology have exacerbated the demand. Therefore, the Virginia partnership was created to develop an accessible, comprehensive system to educate American workers and the workforce developers who train them.

Foucar-Szocki concluded her part of the session by discussing the genesis of the project, which combined the strengths and focus of key partners, longstanding relationships among all partners, and the existing and tested face-to-face curriculums.

During the second part of the session, Julia Harbeck covered the development of the WDC project. This presentation included an overview of the transformation of existing content to online delivery, adapting to a changing audience, creating pre-assessments, and training instructors. The core team consisted of an instructional technologist and a subject matter expert. The "train-the-trainer" workshop materials included WIN's Facilitator's Guide for the Professional Development of Workforce Educators and the online program "Workforce development certification through the WDC" Harbeck also discussed in more detail the process used to train the instructors, the problems encountered, and adjustments made. One challenge was to change the focus from train-the-trainer to online learners. The WIN Facilitator's Guide was revised to meet the needs of online learners. The general outline for the online content included:

• •

  Review information in resources or questions.

• •

  Respond to questions that make the learners think about the information in terms of their needs, prior knowledge, and interests.

• •

  Search for more information on the Web.

• •

  Work individually, or in groups when appropriate, to apply or synthesize the information.

• •

  Use the discussion board provided in Course Info to discuss with the rest of the class the learner's or group's findings, responses, conclusions, or opinions.

• •

  When asked, assist classmates in coming to a consensus on certain issues.

Essentially, the core team found that sound knowledge of audience, content, and technology is required to deliver workshop materials to the online learner. Further, teamwork and communication are crucial to the success of the project.

Sharon Pitt directed the last part of the session. She discussed the Center for Instructional Technology, how it became involved in the project, and their plans for the future. She explained that synergy between mission and goals of the participants, combined with the opportunity to cultivate instructional excellence through experimentation with new ideas, teaching methods, and technology, were among the many good reasons for promoting the project. Future plans for the project include:

• •

  expanded student services;

• •

  full certification offered in 2001;

• •

  breaking down policy and process barriers at institutions;

• •

  working with James Madison University to map credit and certificate paths for non-degree seeking workforce educators;

• •

  working with the Office of Continuing Education to determine tuition and registration paths to the virtual campus; and

• •

  working with faculty advisory group on distance learning.

The conclusion of the presentation was a brief overview of the project's achievements. Among the lessons learned were:

• •

  Most partners experience a technology learning curve.

• •

  Effective instructional design is a collaborative process.

• •

  Communication at all levels and all stages of the project is critical.

Clearly, the partners were optimistic about the success of the project, due in part to the natural convergence of the goals and objectives that they share. They realize the need for continued communication and ongoing commitment from participants to the project's mission.

The presentation generated a few questions from the audience concerning other outreach programs. One question led to a discussion concerning a program in the Fairfax, Virginia, public schools. The school system donates old computers to seniors and others who cannot otherwise afford them. The question was asked whether private industry had an interest in their project. Foucar-Szocki responded that in Virginia they worked with over 250 programs that involved private industry. The participants want employers to recognize that their needs may be related to their employees' needs to utilize new technologies. The speakers were also asked if they targeted labor unions and their response was yes; the National Institute for Literacy helps to link people together.

The partnership among Virginia's Workforce Improvement Network, James Madison University, and the GTE Links Virginia for Literacy is to be commended for their work. The presentation was exciting and enlightening despite the obvious rush to finish the presentation in the allotted 45 minutes. For further information about the programs, the entire presentation can be found at http://wdc.jmu.edu.

Building Alliances with Private Industry

This seminar was a joint presentation of Clarion University and Edinboro University, both located in rural western Pennsylvania, and members of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. The presenters for this session were Karen De Mauro, Assistant Vice-President of Computing Services at Clarion University, and Andrew Lawlor, Associate Vice-President for Technology and Communications at Edinboro University.

De Mauro was the first presenter. Clarion's success in this endeavor became the model used by Edinboro University. Clarion has three campuses, seven residence halls, and 6,200 students with approximately 2,000 residential students. The university was faced with the arduous task of providing networked Internet access to student dormitories with no money and no new support personnel. The process was further complicated by the administration's tight deadline of 18 months to complete the installation, the need to keep from increasing student fees, and the liability involved with personnel working on equipment not owned by the university. The proposed solution was to combine all of the telecommunications, including a university-wide network (CNet), a Centrex telephone system, and cable television, into one project and seek a consortium of vendors who would supply the services and pick up the installation cost of the data network. With contracts expiring and service deteriorating rapidly, in 1997 the university started tackling the problems.

With permission from the Chancellor, in 1998 the university hired RCC Consultants and released a Request for Qualified Contractors (RFQC). For anyone interested in the RFQC process, which is different from the RFP process, an excellent example is available through Clarion's Web site at http://www.clarion.edu/rfqc Clarion's funding proposal was unique in that the prime contractor had to be willing to accept the anticipated royalties on the sale of services as payment. During the course of a ten-year contract, the prime contractor and the university would jointly develop royalty payments but the university would not guarantee minimum annual royalties. Further, to increase royalty payments, the vendor would be responsible for improving marketing and services. Finally, vendors developed a consortium with one vendor designated as prime and several other vendors working as subcontractors. The university restricted their contract dealings to the prime contractor only, leaving the prime to deal with the designated subcontractors. In May 1999, construction of Internet, cable television, and telephone services began and by August 2000 the system was working.

Andrew Lawlor presented the history of Edinboro University's similar project. Located near Erie, Pennsylvania, with around 7,000 students, Edinboro is nationally known for its services to students with disabilities. The university has eight residence halls, two campuses, and approximately 2,000 resident students. Edinboro faced many of the same challenges as Clarion but also had some differences in their needs and existing contracts and equipment. Encouraged by the success of Clarion, Edinboro began its own process of upgrading their services to resident students.

Edinboro had their own campus network (CWIN) and existing systems for Internet, cable television, residence hall services, and a help desk. They faced the challenges of very limited wiring and no fiber cable to the residence halls. Their immediate priority was getting the fiber cable to the residence halls. Like Clarion, Edinboro did not want to increase student-housing fees, but in both cases each school had to slightly increase their fees. Construction of the fiber cable system began in July 1999, and installation was completed in August 2000, with the PBX communications system due to be installed by early 2001.

Karen De Mauro spoke again on the five key elements for success of the two projects. These crucial elements included:

1. 1.

   Support from senior administration, especially selling the idea to Clarion's president.

2. 2.

   Support from the Chancellor's office and legal counsel in the application of procurement procedures.

3. 3.

   Development of a flexible RFQC process which let the vendors propose what they could offer.

4. 4.

   Communication facilitation through a cross-university committee.

5. 5.

   Hiring the right consultants.

The outcomes for both universities' projects were successful. Clarion contracted with the ALLTEL Alliance, a group of vendors who provide the university with reduced rates for student computer repairs, an on-campus computer store, a student help desk, as well as cellular telephone services, Internet access, cable television, and other residence hall services. In the first year, the Alliance made 75 per cent of their royalties. The unofficial numbers for the second year show a 100 per cent increase in Internet connections with significant increases in cable television, voice mail/caller ID, and long distance accounts. Projected royalties over the next ten years are estimated at $2 million.

The Williams Alliance provides Edinboro with telephone, data, and cable television to all eight residence halls, with high-speed Internet access for on-campus. Dial-up access was provided to off-campus students. A cellular tower was installed to increase signal quality. Edinboro claims success on several fronts. The project was completed on time and the minimum number of subscribers required to break even was met. Customer and partner satisfaction also remains high. Much of this success is attributed to good marketing and the use of students to promote the services. A marketing booklet, "Need Access", was also used with a high success rate.

De Mauro concluded the presentation with a review of lessons learned and future plans. She believes that the universities must prepare for long-term management of these projects and that the ultimate success depends on the close relationship between the university and the consortium of vendors. She pointed out other key lessons of their projects that included the following:

• •

  Allow enough time and establish realistic milestones.

• •

  Have a committee that represents a broad segment of the campus community.

• •

  Make sure that the prime contractors have the ability to negotiate.

• •

  Expect a culture clash between academia and private industry.

• •

  Details, details, details ­ watch for contractual gray areas.

• •

  Place emphasis on selling the project and budget sufficient marketing funds.

The audience asked a few questions dealing mostly with cost and revenue issues. These were answered by the presenters, with additional material being available online at http://www.edinboro.edu/cwis/tac/mainmenu.html This session presented two test cases that show technological success and access through the collaboration of academia and private industry. In these days of continued under-funding for state learning institutions and advancing technologies, it is more important than ever that the entire community become involved with the improvement of educational opportunities.

Debra J. Roney is Senior Administrative Metadata Specialist, Special Collections Library, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. roney@aztec.lib.utk.edu

Lesli Wall Zimmerman is Senior Technical Metadata Specialist, Special Collections Library, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Mlesli@aztec.lib.utk.edu