EME 6408 Technology Integration Plan: Switching LMS – eCampus to Canvas

Uncategorized

Matt Marino For a Paper Version click here

Executive Summary

This technology integration plan features a switch of learning management systems from eCampus to Canvas for the Information Technology department at Monmouth University. This process allows for faculty to have a more interactive and connected user experience by integrating the currently used web-based tool Pearson MyITLab within the learning management system. The idea for this technology integration project was developed during Spring 2017. Based on the parameters of the plan there is a hope to roll out the change for the Fall 2017 semester, but that may be unrealistic due to the unavailability of some faculty during the summer months. As a result, a more appropriate roll out time may be the Spring 2018 semester.

The plan will be executed based on the findings of the needs analysis. The plan is open-ended to allow for all faculty members to feel comfortable with the change before officially using it in a semester.

After a review of pertinent information and the needs analysis findings, the primary stakeholders [department head and department chair] signed off on the project. The plan’s objectives and goals will be met in accordance with the evaluation plan established.

The primary goals for this plan are to make sure faculty are able to create their own course within the Canvas learning management system and be able to integrate MyITLab to this course so that grades automatically update once assignments are completed and students do not need to navigate between two course platforms. Professional development exercises will cover the necessary information to make this possible. These goals may be met at different times by different faculty, but the project will only be complete upon everyone’s successful understanding.

In the event, more time is needed for certain faculty, updated will be checked on a weekly basis to determine where all faculty members are at with respect to comfort with the rollout of this change.

This evaluation plan provides a brief overview of the project and the background for the idea, the stakeholders involved and how they are impacted by this project, aspects of the needs analysis are identified such as stakeholder involvement and how information will be collected, a description of what will actually occur during this integration, a detailed timeline examining aspects that need to be completed for the project, training involved for faculty to make them comfortable with this change, the projected budget based on the needs of the project, and the evaluation process that will be used to make sure the plan was properly executed. The evaluation plan allows all members of this process to understand the primary goals involved.

Technology Integration Overview

Monmouth University currently runs a learning management system called eCampus. This learning management system looks the same as University of West Florida’s learning management system eLearning. The only difference is the colors and logos. During the Summer 2016 semester I completed an assignment like this for EME 6607 with Dr. Ellis. Within that course, I discussed the need to move from Cengage SAM to Pearson MyITLab for our web-based simulation tool. The Information Technology department head at Monmouth University was so convinced by the plan that the change was made prior to the Fall 2016 semester. However, neither software has been compatible with the eCampus learning management system. It is not possible to integrate scores from MyITLab to eCampus. This means instructors have to go back and forth from MyITLab to eCampus in order to transfer scores. This process can be very time consuming for instructors. For the Spring 2017 semester there are 27 course sections offered within the Information Technology department; all using Pearson MyITLab. These 27 course sections cover 7 different courses: the graduation requirement [IT 100, IT 102, or IT 150] and the 4 other IT minor requirements [IT 200, IT 250, IT 300, and IT 450].

Rather than having to navigate back and forth from eCampus and MyITLab to list assignments, post grades, and check for student completion; Canvas integrates all processes. If the learning management system was changed to Canvas contacting a Pearson representative would provide guidance on integrating the two systems. Once that is done instructors will now be able to post assignments and transfer grades right from Canvas; rather than having to switch back and forth between two systems. Currently, within eCampus instructors have to provide a popup that requests students make sure to visit MyITLab for all MyITLab assignments. Switching to the Canvas LMS allows for automatically links that will take students from one software to the other without much hassle.

According to Mishra and Koehler (2006) the TPACK framework pays attention to Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). Based on this proposal the technology integration would be done by Pearson; in conjunction with Monmouth University’s Campus Technology division. Either Pearson or the Campus Technology division would provide educators with walkthroughs/instruction on how to properly use the new learning management system and how to properly execute using MyITLab with Canvas. Based on the TPACK framework the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the Information Technology department head needs to be considered. The department head would be able to identify the TCK and be shown how switching to a new learning management system would provide students with an easier usage within learning environments. This will also limit confusion due to switching back and forth between two systems. The department head would have to be informed on the PCK and TPK due to a lack of educational background. The department head would have to be informed about how the instructors would be able to potentially cover more topics within the course sessions if they are able to spend less time having to periodically switch back and forth between eCampus and MyITLab. This will not occur within Canvas; as MyITLab will be integrated. The department head would need to be taught about Gardner (2006) with respect to Multiple Intelligences. Due to the lack of pedagogical knowledge the department head holds; other concepts may need to be discussed. With respect to TPK the department head would have to be taught about integrating the new learning management system to MyITLab would help teaching within the classroom; primarily limiting time wasted by having to switch back and forth from eCampus to MyITLab. Otherwise, strategies would have to be implemented so that content on eCampus and MyITLab cannot be presented on the same day. Combining this knowledge would allow the department head to have an extensive idea on how this new technology integration would not only benefit students, but also the teaching aspect of courses.

Loucks-Horsley (1996) noted the seven Stages of Concern related to the CBAM. For the purpose of the integration of Canvas the department head would be identified as being on Stage 1 – Information. The department head has a general idea that the current learning management system is outdated, but may not be aware of the possibilities [specific to “our” courses] that integrated Canvas would bring. It will be necessary to provide enough information to have the department head move to Stage 6 – Refocusing so that the integration can occur smoothly. Attitudes, ability and usage were referenced as it concerns to CBAM (Havard, 2017). The general attitude within education is often to stick with whatever is being used due to comfort. As a result, the department head would likely need to see a presentation on why integrating the new learning management system is a good idea. I would be able to discuss ability and usage of the Canvas learning management system in depth due to it being a focus at many conferences I attend and the fact that it was the LMS used during my MEd. I would be able to describe in detail how it is more intuitive. This could bring the department head closer to Stage 6 and being comfortable giving the go-ahead on the technology integration plan.

Organization Overview and Stakeholder Identification

For the purposes of this integration plan I will focus on the School of Science within Monmouth University; rather than focusing on the entire university. The School of Science is made up of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, and Computer Science and Software Engineering. Embedded within these programs are internships, laboratories, research practicums, math education, information technology, information systems, and integration across topics, such as Calculus for Physics. The Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics departments are made up primarily of full time professors enhanced by adjunct professors with varying backgrounds appropriate for the courses. The Computer Science and Software Engineering department is a little different. This department is comprised of a few full time tenured professors who teach the Computer Science and Software Engineering courses. Then there are two specialist professors in the IT department head and CS/SE department chair who each only teach the freshmen level computer science course in addition to teaching their IT courses. Additionally, there are two IT instructors who are working on three year renewal contracts. One of them teachers one computer science course too. All other Computer Science, Information Technology, Information Systems, and Software Engineering courses are taught by adjunct professors with extensive backgrounds. This is the only department within the School of Science where the adjuncts are more heavily relied on than the full time faculty.

The School of Science’s mission statement is defined as:

The School of Science is a community of learners and teacher-scholars that fosters active learning, quantitative reasoning, and scientific inquiry. Through integration of classroom, laboratory, research, and practical experiences, students acquire skills necessary for lifelong learning, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving as foundations for successful careers and informed, responsible citizenship in a world that is increasingly dependent on science, technology, and engineering” (Mission Statement + Strategic Plan, n.d.).

There is also a clearly defined strategic plan:

Our strategic plan is designed to provide a dynamic five-year working document for prioritizing initiatives to advance the future of the school. The following interrelated priority areas of the strategic plan include enhancing academic programs and curricula, including the teacher-scholar environment and student success, improving student recruitment and enrollment management, marketing and communications, and facilities, as well as alumni relations and the centers of distinction (Rapid Response Institute and the Urban Coast Institute). Finally, we would like to serve as a resource for promoting STEM education in our community” (Mission Statement + Strategic Plan, n.d.).

The mission statement and strategic plan relate to the integration plan of switching from the current outdated eCampus learning management system to the Canvas learning management system due to the fact that Monmouth University is concerned with how they are viewed within the community. If the university, specifically the School of Science, is not using up-to-date technology they are not properly preparing students for successful careers. By failing to upgrade to a new learning management system students will graduate knowing how to utilize a learning management system that is rarely used anywhere else. Additionally, integrating a new learning management system will serve as an enhancement of the Information Technology program due to lessening confusion based on how to navigate between two platforms. Students will now be more likely to complete all assignments; as they will all be available in one place. The university cannot be viewed as a resource within the community if the community is aware that the university is utilizing technology that is outdated. The university would be viewed as not attempting to understand the future of technology.

Primary Stakeholders:

Rabinowitz (2015) noted that primary stakeholders are directly affected by the potential technology integration. Therefore, all Information Technology instructors; both the full time staff [department head and two instructors] and adjuncts [everyone else in the department] would be considered to be primary stakeholders. This group would be impacted in a positive way; as integrating the new learning management system would allow them to save time developing two different course shells on eCampus and MyITLab. With the integration of Canvas instructors would now setup their MyITLab course and connect it with Canvas. All aspects of the course would now be embedded in one platform. This will open up more time for instructors to prepare stronger lesson plans, cover more topics, and provide more office hours and more time to respond to emails for student inquiries

Secondary Stakeholders:

Rabinowitz (2015) noted that secondary stakeholders are indirectly affected by the potential technology integration. Therefore, all Information Technology students and lab assistants would be considered to be secondary stakeholders. Lab assistants would be required to familiarize themselves with how MyITLab and Canvas work together. This would have to be integrated into their training prior to each semester. Students will be switching from eCampus to Canvas and may not understand how to use the new learning management system. The university’s Campus Technology department would have to develop walkthrough tutorial on the new learning management system; as they have done for the current platform. Since Canvas is more intuitive than eCampus it is possible that students and lab assistants may not even need formalized training in this fashion.

Key Stakeholders:

Rabinowitz (2015) noted key stakeholders can have an impact on the technology integration due to their standing. This group would consist of the department head and department chair. As noted within my Module 2 discussion post; these individuals would be considered laggards, who must be convinced based on extensive information to stop using outdated resources. However, due to their positions they could potentially block the technology integration. Since both also teach one Computer Science course the integration of the new learning management system would allow them more available time to prepare for those courses due to not having to switch back and forth between platforms to enter grades. It will also allow them to have more time to develop stronger lesson plans and be more prepared in all of their classes. It might even open up more time for professional development or further study to enhance their pedagogical knowledge and educational theory background, so everything does not need to be explained to them in depth. This will make future technology integration attempts potentially easier.

Needs Analysis Plan

 

Purpose
(brief)
A needs assessment was conducted to determine if an updated learning management system [Canvas] that is more compatible with the current web-based teaching program [MyITLab] is appropriate to integrate.

 

Overview
(brief)
MyITLab is a web-based software housing many of the student assessments. It currently does not mesh with the eCampus learning management system. The Canvas learning management system does mesh with MyITLab; allowing grades and assignments to be integrated smoothly.

 

Optimals
(brief)
1.      Improve faculty morale [eCampus is viewed as outdated]

2.      Limit grade transfer times

3.      Open up more time for preparation of course session agendas

4.      Limit confusion among students

5.      Create smooth transition between two platforms by integrating MyITLab into Canvas

6.      Provide more user friendly learning management system to faculty and students

 

Actuals
(brief)
Currently the university uses an outdated learning management system called eCampus. It is difficult for faculty and students to use due to the lack of accessibility to certain areas. Grades for example require students and faculty to go through three different pages before they may see what they are looking for. In August 2016 the university upgraded from an outdated web-based software for assessments to a more user friendly version. However, MyITLab can be integrated with certain learning management systems to make importing grades and assignments easier, but eCampus is not one of those learning management systems.

 

Rationale
(brief)
The Canvas learning management system is being integrated in order to make the student and faculty experience more convenient. Switching from eCampus to Canvas allows for faculty to setup MyITLab within Canvas and import grades without having to go back and forth between two platforms to copy grades. Additionally, faculty can link MyITLab assignments right within Canvas in appropriate folders. All students have to do is login to MyITLab after following the link within Canvas. This limits confusion among students who have difficulty navigating between two platforms. Students may not even be aware that they are switching from one platform to another when the links open due to the smooth transition. Not having to spend hours each week switching back and forth between windows to input grades allows faculty to focus on other aspects of teaching and allow them to be more prepared for class due to having to spend less time on transferring grades.

 

Stakeholders
(detail)
Primary Stakeholders: For the purposes of the needs assessment the primary stakeholders will be identified as (1) full time instructors and (2) adjunct faculty. The two full time instructors and the twelve adjunct faculty will participate in the devised survey. The two full time instructors are full time, but not the department head or department chair. One of these full time instructors only teaches Information Technology courses due to a lack of qualifications to teach Computer Science courses. She teaches four Information Technology courses. The other full time instructor; like the department chair and department head is qualified to teach Computer Science courses. He teaches two Information Technology courses and two Computer Science courses. The adjunct faculty either teach one or two courses within the Information Technology department. This is largely dependent on seniority; as new faculty are only allowed to teach one course to prove themselves and faculty with experience are offered two courses.

 

Secondary Stakeholders: For the purposes of the needs assessment the secondary stakeholders will be identified as (1) students and (2) lab assistants. These individuals will not participate in the survey and their input will not be considered. Each course is setup to fit 24 student enrollments, but this varies due to enrollment. Students actively participate in the learning management system due to the university’s reliance on it. The number of lab assistants from semester to semester is extremely inconsistent due to the department head not informing faculty or students about opportunities in this area. As a result, some faculty members have two lab assistants per course and others have none. Lab assistants are students who have previously completed the course with at least an A- and in good standing with the university. The lab assistants would not be involved in the survey and their input would not be considered. Lab assistants would merely need to be trained in how to show students how to smoothly access MyITLab through Canvas. Every other part of their training would remain the same.

 

Key Stakeholders: For these purposes of the needs assessment the key stakeholders will be identified as (1) department head and (2) department chair. There is one department head and one department chair [who are two different people]. These individuals will participate in the survey, but their responses may be bias. These individuals are the least educated of the entire department both in content knowledge and pedagogically, but make decisions, so the data must be shared with them in order for the technology integration to occur.

 

Data Collection Tools
(detail) 
A digital survey will be created to allow all members of the faculty to participate. For these purposes, since it is not appropriate, nor necessary to have a secondary data collection tool, the SoCQ will serve as the second data collection tool. Since all parties of the department outside of the department chair and department head believe this change in learning management system is necessary and appropriate, the data collected is merely another aspect of supporting evidence for the need to change/upgrade. The survey will address concerns such as time devoted to transferring grades, confusion of students, and accessibility. The Stages of Concern Questionnaire will be used as additional evidence to demonstrate the need to upgrade. However, certain aspects of the SoCQ may not be relevant.

 

Data Analysis
(detail) 
Data collected will be both quantitative [SoCQ] and qualitative [survey and parts of SoCQ]. The data collected will be secured through online means and stored in a protected environment. The data will be extracted from the online source and analyzed by the entire department. The department head may need to call a number of meetings to discuss the findings; as was done when the switch from Cengage SAM to Pearson MyITLab was made. All parties must participate to prevent any upheaval as the process moves along. The conclusions that the data presents need to be discussed and possibly questioned.

 

Results
(detail) 
The results of the data analysis will indicate that the faculty members believe strongly in upgrading from the eCampus learning management system to the Canvas learning management system. Among the reasons defined are compatibility with the Pearson MyITLab software, prompt transferability of grades opening up time to prepare for class meetings or other necessities, diffusing student confusion due to not knowing which platform to use, and lack of available resources for issues with using eCampus. The data describes a clear need to update/upgrade with supporting evidence.

 

Conclusions
(brief)
The data indicated that a change is necessary. Therefore, the conclusion is to change from the eCampus learning management system to the Canvas learning management system. However, the time where this change is made must be identified. Since lab assistants are not hired properly prior to semesters it may be more appropriate to implement the project during the summer break so faculty have extensive time to adjust to the learning management system in case they do not have a lab assistant in their course at the start of the semester.

 

Data Collection

An online survey will be created to address potential needs associated with the technology integration of switching from eCampus to Canvas. Aspects associated with the impacts of this switch will be addressed with respect to both students and faculty. Canvas links will be provided as well, in order to seek if faculty would need additional support with respect to this integration. Additionally, faculty will be asked about the support they are currently receiving from the university’s Pearson representative with respect to MyITLab.

Data will be collected through online means via a survey tool such as Survey Monkey or Google Docs that is identified as secured. Each survey will have an identifier associated with it to ensure all members of the faculty complete it. Faculty will be sent reminders as appropriate. A modified version of the SoCQ that fits the needs of this project will be sent to faculty for completion too. Once all data is collected it will be retrieved from the online metric and discussed among the staff. Since it is impossible to arrange for all faculty to meet at one time due to scheduling conflicts this will likely occur as a phone conference.

Survey Questions:

  1. Are you comfortable with the eCampus learning management system?
  2. Have you heard of the Canvas learning management system?
  3. What information/training might you need to reach a level of comfort with Canvas?
  4. How much time do you spend transferring grades from MyITLab to eCampus?
  5. What percentage of students are confused due to switching back and forth between platforms?
  6. Do you believe you’ve been provided appropriate support by Campus Technology regarding eCampus?
  7. Do you believe you’ve been provided appropriate support by our university Pearson representative regarding MyITLab?
  8. How much time is spent during class sessions switching back and forth between eCampus and MyITLab?
  9. Does transferring grades from MyITLab cut into your course prep time?
  10. Based on what you have learned about the Canvas learning management system what is your opinion on upgrading from eCampus to Canvas?

Technology Integration

The technology integration plan involves a number of different facets with respect to the scenario of changing from one learning management system to another. This includes a fairly simple process “behind the scenes” where the Canvas learning management system is installed and the eCampus learning management system is removed. Prior to rolling the new Canvas learning management system out to everyone; a beta test will be implemented with Canvas to check out all of the nuisances. Employees will be learning Canvas stored on the server while eCampus remains for faculty to use for the summer courses. Technically, both learning management systems will therefore be active for some time, but Canvas will only be active to faculty for testing during this period.

The people involved would include the Information Technology department staff [adjunct faculty and instructors] and the Campus Technology department that will implement the changeover. The intended outcome is to have faculty and students comfortable with using the new learning management system.

The environment surrounding this project can determine a lot of how things progress. Currently the building where nearly all Information Technology courses are held is adjacent to a building that has ongoing construction since 2014 that is not scheduled to conclude until year’s end. Luckily the new learning management system can be rolled out onto systems from the Campus Technology office. However, faculty may have difficulty testing out the system on campus, so will likely do so at home. Therefore, access and facilities may be an issue dependent on the day a faculty member may attempt to visit the building to test out the new learning management system. It is likely easier to reach the Campus Technology department while on campus than at home.

There are no hardware or software resources that the faculty/staff have to concern themselves with. The Campus Technology will roll out/install the Canvas learning management system and interface with Canvas to make sure the beta test runs smoothly. During the beta test, it may be appropriate for either the department head or Campus Technology to hold a tutorial session for those uncomfortable with using the new software. This would include integrating Pearson MyITLab into the Canvas learning management system. For the purposes of this technology integration what is currently on the university computers will remain the same. The individuals involved in this process need to provide time towards learning, training, and/or presenting. The university will provide the same security with respect to Canvas that they did with eCampus. If Campus Technology is unable to answer questions regarding Canvas it would be appropriate to secure a Canvas representative for the university; just like the university has a representative for Pearson, in case of any issues with MyITLab.

Project Plan

This project will take 3 to 6 months. The start date will be April 15th in order to consider implementing this for the Fall 2017 semester. Depending on the need for training of faculty the project can be rolled out for the first day of classes in September. There will be some overlap for training of lab assistants; who are usually hired during the first few weeks of classes. For the project’s implementation, the lab assistant training is not considered part of the process, but something that needs to be done for their benefit to assist during class time. This will be included on the schedule, but will not delay completion.

Professional Development

For the purposes of this technology integration project the professional development training will be limited. Based on the needs assessment the training will revolve around basic usage of the new Canvas learning management system and the integration of MyITLab into Canvas for smoother usage. Faculty are encouraged to seek additional personalized training if they feel the need upon completion of the provided training.

The goal of the training session will be to make sure that faculty are comfortable using the new Canvas learning management system and able to integrate the MyITLab tool into Canvas. This means faculty should be aware of all important components on Canvas and be able to setup the integration of MyITLab into Canvas for their courses for a smoother transition of assignments and grades.

The training will address the primary and key stakeholders groups that need to know the specifics of using Canvas and integrating MyITLab, so there are no issues during the course of the semester. The secondary stakeholders [students and lab assistants] can be taught how to use Canvas after it is implemented. The secondary stakeholders do not need to know how to integrate MyITLab into Canvas.

Based on the scheduling conflicts of the Information Technology department members the training sessions will be done via the web. Three sessions will be created at various times to accommodate all members of the department. These sessions will include a 30 minute webinar on using Canvas and a 30 minute webinar on integrating MyITLab into Canvas. These webinars will be created by the Campus Technology department at the university. Personalized trainings, as needed, would be provided by Pearson [MyITLab] and Infrastructure [Canvas]. Faculty will need to login to their learning management system to view these webinars. Faculty can participate in these webinars at any time and any place; as they will be offered on-demand. No additional equipment will be necessary to access these webinars.

Upon completion of the webinars faculty will be required to setup their courses using Canvas and integrating MyITLab into Canvas. Faculty will then be required to complete one assignment via Canvas and one assignment via MyITLab as a student to make sure all components are working properly. Faculty will either find they have successfully utilized Canvas and integrated MyITLab or that they need further training directly from the product source. The product source representatives will walk faculty through the setup directly to ensure everything is setup correctly.

Budget for Technology Integration

For the purposes of this technology integration there will be no costs associated. The Campus Technology members and full time faculty that are completing tasks during this process are already being paid full time for their efforts and do not receive additional compensation for this. The adjunct faculty are not paid for spending an hour completing the webinars. The full time faculty claims this is part of the job to remain on the staff; so adjuncts complete the webinars in the hopes of future assignments. The lab assistants will be trained after they are hired at the beginning of the semester regardless of any technology integration as part of the requirements prior to being hired. For these purposes, since only one department will be using the Canvas learning management system we will use the free option provided and merely have Campus Technology install it into our university systems. By completing these measures there are no additional costs to implementing this project. This was the same method used for the change from Cengage SAM to Pearson MyITLab where the work was being done by people already being paid to work; so there were no additional costs.

Evaluation Plan

The purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether or not the Information Technology instructors [both full time and adjuncts] were able to smoothly transition from using the eCampus learning management system to using the Canvas learning management system. If individuals are struggling with the change; individualized professional development may need to be created to help them prepare for upcoming semesters. The audience is the Information Technology instructors.

The evaluation approach used would be objectives-oriented. Upon completion of this integration project it is important for instructors to be able to use the Canvas learning management system effectively so that they can create their course and integrate the MyITLab into Canvas to make a seamless transition between assignments for students. These two clear objectives need to be met before the official switch to Canvas can be made.

The evaluation questions would be as follows:

  1. Are all instructors able to create a course within the Canvas learning management system?
  2. If not, do we provide further assistance through Infrastructure [Canvas’ mother company] or Campus Technology department?
  3. Are all instructors able to integrate MyITLab into Canvas so that it is in working order?
  4. If not, do we provide further assistance through Pearson or Campus Technology department?
  5. Are instructors comfortable using both Canvas and MyITLab integrated into Canvas?

Our data collection source was via the surveys due to it allowing for the differing schedules of those within the department. The data was collected based on instructor feedback. Analysis occurred by reviewing the responses with all members of the department via teleconference; as appropriate. Evaluating the data collected allows replication of strong points in future projects and modifications as necessary.

The evaluation timeline depends largely on the completion of our evaluation objectives. If the instructors are able to grasp the new learning management system and integrate MyITLab into it relatively easily, the evaluation timeline would be about a week. If instructors are struggling to learn how to use the new learning management system and integrate the timeline will be substantially longer; with periodic weekly checks on how instructors are doing. Despite this being for an Information Technology department; some instructors are more tech savvy than others. Therefore, a few may struggle with the new learning management system. Estimating from the MyITLab project I would guess it will take three to four weeks to get everyone comfortable with the integration and updates.

References

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. Basic books.

Havard, B. (2017). Module 1: Lesson Topic. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https://hostsited2l.uwf.edu/d2l/le/content/987857/viewContent/2783068/View

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). The concerns-based adoption model (CBAM): A model for change in individuals.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Mission Statement + Strategic Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2017, from https://www.monmouth.edu/academics/schools/science/mission.asp

Rabinowitz, P. (2015). Chapter 7: Section 8. Identifying and analyzing stakeholders and their interests. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Retrieved from the Community Tool Box: http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/participation/encouraging-involvement/identifystakeholders/main

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *