Evaluation of TechnologyBased Learning Grants 

Interim Report 

October 2010 

Prepared by: 

Kate Dunham 

Rachel Estrella 

Annie Nyborg 

Prepared for:

 US Department of Labor 

 Employment and Training 

Administration 

 200 Constitution Ave., NW

 Washington, DC 20210 

 Contract No. J061A20362

 Project No. 1360 

S O CIA L P O L ICY R ESEA R C H 

A SS O CIATE S 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Tel: (510) 763-1499 

Fax: (510) 763-1599 

www.spra.com 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1
 

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... I-1
 

Overview of the Grantees ...............................................................................................I-2
 

Overview of the TBL Evaluation......................................................................................I-4
 

Data Collection................................................................................................................I-5
 

Overview of this Interim Report.......................................................................................I-7
 

II. OVERVIEW OF TBL TRAINING PROGRAMS.................................................... II-1
 

Types of Training Programs...........................................................................................II-1
 

Prerequisite Skills, Eligibility Criteria, and Application Requirements ............................II-3
 

Orientations....................................................................................................................II-6
 

Instructors ......................................................................................................................II-8
 

Learning Management Systems ..................................................................................II-10
 

Participant Technical Support ......................................................................................II-12
 

Accommodations for Disabled Students ......................................................................II-13
 

Additional Services for Participants..............................................................................II-13
 

Summary......................................................................................................................II-15
 

III. PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................................. III-1
 

Program Goals ..............................................................................................................III-1
 

Planning and Designing TBL Programs ........................................................................III-3
 

Summary.......................................................................................................................III-9
 

IV. TRAINING METHODS AND CONTENT .............................................................IV-1
 

Models of Online Learning ........................................................................................... IV-1
 

Blended Learning ....................................................................................................... IV-10
 

Asynchronous Delivery .............................................................................................. IV-15
 

Summary.................................................................................................................... IV-16
 

i 
V. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND 

PARTNERSHIPS/LINKAGES..............................................................................V-1
 

Administration of TBL Programs ................................................................................... V-1
 

Partnerships and Linkages............................................................................................ V-3
 

Summary..................................................................................................................... V-11
 

VI. EARLY OUTCOMES...........................................................................................VI-1
 

Increasing Enrollment .................................................................................................. VI-1
 

Lowering Barriers to Participation ................................................................................ VI-2
 

Early Experiences of TBL Students and Employers..................................................... VI-4
 

Summary...................................................................................................................... VI-5
 

VII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................VII-1
 

Promising Practices .................................................................................................... VII-1
 

Challenges Faced by Cohort I Grantees..................................................................... VII-3
 

APPENDIX A: TBL Evaluation Research Questions.............................................. A-1
 

APPENDIX B: Cohort I Grantee Summaries........................................................... B-1 

ii 
 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 

launched the Technology-Based Learning (TBL) Initiative, which seeks to “expand access to 

training resulting in an increased number of workers trained, particularly in high-growth, highdemand occupations, and to meet the needs of industry for skilled employees.”1 TBL is usually 

defined as learning that takes place via some form of electronic technology, typically a computer, 

with materials accessed over the Internet or via CD-ROMs, or on a particular computer or group 

of computers in a computer lab. TBL is essentially synonymous with several other terms in 

common usage, including e-learning. Practically speaking, TBL is becoming increasingly 

inseparable from the Internet, but in a strict sense TBL is broader and more inclusive than terms 

referring to learning that occurs via the Internet, such as online learning. 

Soon after this initiative was launched, several small TBL projects were funded as 

demonstrations. Due to the promise shown by these early projects, ETA decided to provide 

systematic support for TBL on a national basis. Consequently, in June 2008, ETA released a 

Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) to provide $10 million in funding for TBL projects 

throughout the country. Based on responses to this SGA, in January 2009, ETA awarded funds 

to 20 grantees in 16 states to develop and implement TBL projects over a three-year period. 

In June 2008, ETA awarded Social Policy Research Associates a contract to evaluate these TBL 

grants. The evaluation features the collection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative 

data. Qualitative data collection has occurred primarily through two sets of site visits to 

grantees. The first set, which included the six grantees that implemented their programs within 

the first 10 months of the grant (referred to herein as Cohort I) were visited in fall 2009. The 

second set of site visits, which included the 14 remaining grantees (referred to herein as Cohort 

II), were visited during the spring and summer of 2010. 

“Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) Under the Employment and 

Training Administration’s (ETA) Technology-Based Learning (TBL) Initiative.” Federal Register. Volume 73, 

No. 120. 6/20/08. Notices, p. 35155. 

ES-1 

1 
 

This interim report presents findings from the evaluation based primarily on data gathered during 

site visits to Cohort I grantees (please see Exhibit ES-1). The report focuses on the program 

design, administration, partnerships, and training methods used by these grantees. It also 

provides a brief discussion of preliminary outcomes and challenges as well as some promising 

practices that are emerging from these programs. The final report, which will be completed in 

spring 2011, will be based on all data collected during the evaluation, including site visits to both 

Cohort I and Cohort II grantees. 

Exhibit ES-1: Characteristics of Cohort I Grantees 

TBL Grant 

Grantee Primary Service Area Industry/ Sector Funding Project Type 

New program – Able-Disabled Advocacy, San Diego Information $584,600 curricula already in Inc County, CA Technology place 

Greenville area Greenville Technical Expand existing and other parts of Health Care $154,018 College program South Carolina 

Expand existing Mental Health Guidance Center Wayne County, MI $500,000 program with existing Direct Care curriculum 

Geographic Northern Virginia Convert existing Northern Virginia Information $492,458 Community College curriculum Systems 

Ogden-Weber Applied Weber County, Information Expand existing $500,000 Technology College Utah Technology program 

University of Colorado, 

Denver Nationwide Energy Management $502,596 Develop new program 

Background 

According to ETA, the goal of the TBL grants is to stimulate the development of new and 

innovative models and uses for TBL and, in the process, increase worker access to training in an 

effective and timely manner. TBL grantees are required to provide effective user support for all 

clients, including underserved populations and individuals with all levels of computer and 

technical proficiency, and to ensure that TBL training programs lead to recognized credentials. 

In addition, in developing and implementing these TBL programs, grantees are required to make 

use of existing demand-driven strategic partnerships. 

Overview of Training Programs 

Cohort I TBL providers operate training programs in information technology, health care, and 

energy management that lead to certificates, nursing license reinstatement, and master’s degrees. 

These programs serve both incumbent and unemployed or under-employed workers, last for 

ES-2 
periods ranging from 30 minutes to 18 months, and provide the bulk of their content online. 

They also have varying eligibility requirements and computer literacy prerequisites. 

All Cohort I programs provide or plan to provide certain services in addition to training. These 

include career counseling, placement services, internships, and soft-skills or job-readiness 

training. Students who are co-enrolled with certain partners may also receive case management 

and supportive services. 

Each of the Cohort I programs uses a Learning Management System (LMS), most commonly 

Blackboard Learn, to allow students to access training materials and assessments as well as to 

track student progress. The LMS also enables students and instructors to effectively 

communicate with one another and engage in topical discussions. Programs make provisions to 

accommodate disabled students. 

Cohort I programs have from one to four instructors, hired on either a permanent or contract 

basis. Most programs provide ongoing training in TBL methods and technical support to these 

instructors, and most TBL instructors express satisfaction with their programs. Some instructors, 

however, noted challenges, primarily related to teaching load or the “awkward” nature of 

teaching without a live audience. 

Planning and Design 

The planning and design process varied for each program in Cohort I, depending on program 

goals and the capacity of each grantee organization to reach them. The main goals for the 

grantees in Cohort I are to use TBL methods to increase access to education and training and to 

improve the quality of educational content and delivery of their programs. The grantees increase 

access to training by helping students overcome specific barriers to participating in training, 

which include challenges associated with geography and time constraints. Efforts to improve 

educational quality include infrastructure improvements, streamlining training opportunities, and 

tailoring programs to meet specific industry needs. 

All programs engaged in some level of collaboration during the design process. Student needs 

and the needs of target industries guided the design process for each program, with some 

programs relying heavily on partners to help them define those needs and develop appropriate 

ways to address them. The design process was lengthier when grantees coordinated across 

multiple partners, were developing new programs, or were unfamiliar with ETA grants. 

Program Administration, Partnerships, and Linkages 

ES-3 
The six Cohort I TBL grantees include four public institutions of higher education—three 

community or technical colleges and a university—and two private non-profit organizations. 

These grantees’ TBL programs have from four to seven staff, excluding instructors, who devote 

at least part of their time to the program. Typically these staff members include a program 

manager/grant administrator, an instructional designer, one staff person who oversees the LMS 

and other technology, and a liaison to students. 

Despite some challenges related to the economic downturn and problems with communication, 

all six Cohort I grantees have developed or strengthened partnerships and linkages related to 

their TBL programs. Employers, in particular, are a focus of partnership efforts for all six 

programs, though some programs have more developed relationships than others. At the time of 

the site visits, four of the six programs had relationships with local public workforce systems, 

though the strengths of those relationships varied. Five of the six Cohort I TBL programs have 

strong linkages with partners other than employers and workforce system entities. 

Training Methods and Content 

The programs in Cohort I employ different approaches to online learning, using a wide variety of 

methods for instruction and content delivery. Some programs engage in a more “interactive” 

approach, where students interact directly with online course materials. The level of interaction 

may vary and can be as simple as navigating online content or as complex as using technology to 

run experiments. Other programs incorporate requirements that foster social interaction among 

online students in an attempt to create community as well as to keep students focused and 

engaged. 

All but one of the programs employs a blended approach to learning, combining in-person 

elements with online instruction. Blended learning is increasingly becoming the “method of 

choice” for training programs because of the belief that it is a more engaging approach that also 

fosters better knowledge retention. While staff across Cohort I programs share this belief, their 

approaches to blending vary in structure, extent, and purposefulness. Cohort I programs cited a 

number of different rationales for the use of blended approaches. Some programs, for example, 

have practical skills training components that require a hands-on approach. Other programs 

place high value on the opportunities for peer networking and relationship building that are 

afforded by blended learning approaches. Blended approaches also help students maintain a 

productive pace and enable instructors to appropriately adapt training to the capacities of each 

student. 

A second, almost universally-adopted method, is Cohort I programs’ use of asynchronous 

delivery (i.e., making training content available at any time and thereby decoupling delivery of 

ES-4 
content from the time of its creation). Cohort I programs overwhelmingly opt to use this 

approach primarily because of its convenience for students as well as for pedagogical reasons, 

such as the ability to allow students to be self-paced and to review course content as much as 

necessary, thereby helping them to learn more effectively. 

Preliminary Outcomes 

After only a year of implementation, it appears that Cohort I TBL programs are on target to 

achieve a number of expected outcomes. Most programs are either on or ahead of schedule to 

achieve their goals of increased enrollment. The use of TBL methods also seems to have helped 

students overcome barriers related to distance and time, making it easier for these students to 

participate in training. Similarly, employers report being happy with Cohort I TBL programs 

and graduates, with several employers noting that they have hired or would like to hire program 

graduates. In addition, students report being generally quite satisfied with their experiences in 

the programs. 

Conclusion 

Less than a year after receiving their TBL grants, the six Cohort I grantees have designed and 

begun implementation of their TBL training programs. During this process, they have developed 

some possible promising practices and have faced a number of challenges. 

Promising Practices 

Cohort I grantees have developed a number of possible promising practices in the areas of 

teaching methods, technology, instructors and partnerships: 

	 Requiring in-person activities to help students maintain motivation and 

develop relationships. Three of the primarily online TBL programs in Cohort I 

specifically require certain in-person activities to help students remain motivated 

and develop relationships with peers and instructors. 

	 Recording training content and making it available in multiple, easy-to-use 

formats. By making recorded lectures available via simple and easy-to-navigate 

technology, some TBL programs have made it extremely trouble-free and 

convenient for students to access training content.
 

	 Exploiting the potential for online interaction. Due to the importance of 

student–instructor and student–student interaction in online courses, some Cohort 

I programs have developed additional techniques for such interaction such as 

requiring use of discussion boards and creating social networking sites. 

ES-5 
	 Giving in-person orientations to key technologies. Three primarily online 

Cohort I programs provide in-person orientations to using their technology to 

lessen the chance that students will face problems using it. 

	 Using Technological solutions to problems related to installing and using 

certain software on home computers. To eliminate the problems students have 

faced in using geographic information systems (GIS) software programs on their 

home computers, one program plans to install technology to allow students to 

access this software from a server, rather than from their own hard drives. 

	 Providing software that helps instructors adapt content for online teaching. 

Greenville Technical College has begun using a software program called 

SoftChalk LessonBuilder, which allows instructors to publish training content to 

the college’s LMS with no knowledge of programming. 

	 Providing training to support online instructors. Each of the TBL programs in 

Cohort I provide training for both new and continuing online instructors. 

	 Allowing extensive employer involvement. Through deep and extensive 

relationships with employers, one program has developed a truly employer-driven 

program. 

	 Developing strong co-enrollment partnerships. Through its co-enrollment 

partnership with a community-based organization, one program has provided a 

significant source of support for about a quarter of its students.
 

	 Developing strong linkages with the public workforce system to increase 

employer and student referrals. Two programs’ partnerships with the public 

workforce system have resulted in referrals of potential students, increased 

connections with employers, and improved knowledge of local industry. 

Challenges 

Cohort I grantees have thus far faced a number of challenges in the areas of teaching methods, 

technology, instructors, and partnerships: 

	 Determining an appropriate course structure (e.g., level of flexibility, amount 

of required in-person time) can be difficult to determine at the outset. Three 

programs have had to recalibrate their structures to meet students’ needs. 

	 The right balance between in-person and online activities can be difficult to 

set. Some students wanted more in-person activities to provide them with 

additional opportunities for hands-on practice. 

	 Server problems may interfere with program operation. One program faced 

major problems with the college’s computer server, causing students to lose 

access to training content. 

	 Software program glitches may interfere with program operation. 

Respondents from several programs had problems using their learning 

management systems as well as other types of software. 

ES-6 
	 Some instructors have difficulty adapting to online teaching. Instructors who 

were new to teaching in an online environment sometimes had difficulty 

understanding that online learning requires a different approach to instruction and 

different methods. 

	 Students’ needs for assistance can put unreasonable demands on teaching 

staff. At one TBL program, which is self-paced and where students require a lot 

of one-on-one assistance, instructors faced a significant challenge in trying to 

meet student needs. 

	 It can be difficult to develop co-enrollment linkages with the public 

workforce system. Two programs faced challenges in developing co-enrollment 

partnerships with the public workforce system. 

	 Employers can be reticent to partner under the strain of the recession. Two 

programs faced challenges in developing strong partnerships with some 

employers; in both cases this was at least partly due to the economic recession. 

	 Some employer partners may want too much control. One program faced a 

challenge in having employers on the advisory board try to assume too much 

ownership over the program. 

	 CBO partners may face challenges that reduce their ability to fully 

participate. One program has had difficulty getting community-based 

organization partners to attend the meetings of its advisory committee or make 

many referrals because these partners are over-stretched and too busy. 

ES-7 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Technology-based learning (TBL) is usually defined as learning that takes place via some form 

of electronic technology. The technology may be the medium through which content is 

delivered (computers, mobile devices); the source or repository of the content (the Internet, CDROM); the means through which learners discover, manipulate, and create (computer software); 

the means through which learners and instructors are connected over distances (the Internet, 

intranets); or any of these modes in combination. A variety of educational technologies are 

employed in the typical TBL program. TBL is essentially synonymous with several other terms 

in common usage, including e-learning. Practically speaking, TBL is becoming increasingly 

inseparable from the Internet, but in a strict sense TBL is broader and more inclusive than terms 

referring to learning that occurs via the Internet, such as online learning. 

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 

launched the TBL Initiative, which seeks, through development of innovative models and uses 

for TBL, to “expand access to training resulting in an increased number of workers trained, 

particularly in high-growth, high-demand occupations, and to meet the needs of industry for 

skilled employees.”1

 Soon after this initiative was launched, several small TBL projects were 

funded as demonstrations. Due to the promise shown by these early projects, ETA decided to 

provide systematic support for TBL on a national basis. Consequently, in June 2008, ETA 

released a Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) to provide $10 million in funding for TBL 

projects throughout the country. Based on responses to this SGA, ETA awarded funds in 

January 2009 to twenty grantees in sixteen states to develop and implement TBL projects over a 

three-year period. 

In June 2008, ETA awarded Social Policy Research Associates a contract to evaluate these 

grants. The evaluation features two rounds of phone reconnaissance, one site visit to each 

“Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) Under the Employment and 

Training Administration’s (ETA) Technology-Based Learning (TBL) Initiative.” Federal Register. Volume 73, 

No. 120. 6/20/08. Notices, p. 35155. 

I-1 

1 
 

grantee either in fall 2009 (Cohort I) or spring/summer 2010 (Cohort II), and collection of 

grantee quarterly reports. This interim report is based on data collected during fall 2009 site 

visits to the six grantees (Cohort I) that implemented their programs early and presents 

preliminary findings from the evaluation. 

Overview of the Grantees 

Due to the broad nature of the initiative’s goals, the twenty TBL grantees are a diverse group, as 

are their training programs (please see Exhibit I-1). While all of their training programs are 

aimed at high-growth industries, grantees are targeting nine different industries. And even 

within a targeted industry, grantees vary in their emphasis. For example, among the nine 

grantees targeting the health care sector, specific programs range from refresher programs for 

nurses who need to renew their certifications to a program specifically designed to improve 

communication skills among limited-English-proficient nurses. 

Exhibit I-1: 

Key Characteristics of TBL Grantees
 

Grantee Primary Service Area Industry/ Sector 

TBL Grant 

Funding Project Type 

Able-Disabled Advocacy, 

Inc 

San Diego 

County, CA 

Information 

Technology $584,600 

New program – 

curricula already in 

place 

Expand existing College of Southern Las Vegas Metro Health Care $420,727 program; convert Nevada Area, NV existing courses 

County of Orange/OC Orange County, Workforce Investment Health Care $500,000 Develop new program CA Board 

New Orleans, LA 

Atlanta, GA Green Update existing Dillard University $969,090 Savannah, GA Construction curriculum 

Detroit, MI 

Greenville area Greenville Technical Expand existing and other parts of Health Care $154,018 College program South Carolina 

Expand existing Mental Health Guidance Center Wayne County, MI $500,000 program with existing Direct Care curriculum 

Gulf Coast Community Florida Robotics $499,583 Develop new program College 

Hillsborough Community Expand existing Florida Manufacturing $498,815 College program 

Illinois Department of Information Convert existing Commerce and Chicago Area $500,000 Technology curriculum Economic Opportunity 

Madisonville Community 

College 

W. Kentucky, 

contiguous Health Care $425,181 Convert existing curriculum 

I-2 
Grantee Primary Service Area Industry/ Sector 

TBL Grant 

Funding Project Type 

regions of Indiana, 

Illinois and 

Tennessee 

North Central Texas 

College 

North Texas 

Southern 

Oklahoma 

Health Care $538,947 Convert existing 

curriculum 

Northern Virginia 

Community College Northern Virginia 

Geographic 

Information 

Systems 

$492,458 Convert existing 

curriculum 

Ogden-Weber Applied 

Technology College 

Weber County, 

Utah 

Information 

Technology $500,000 Expand existing program 

Reno Community Reno-Sparks Expand existing Transportation $499,900 Services Agency MSA, NV program 

Consolidate existing Research Foundation of New York State Health Care $365,666 materials for new SUNY 

program 

Information Temple University Philadelphia, PA $695,569 Develop new program 

Energy 

Management 

Technology 

University of Colorado, Nationwide $502,596 Develop new program Denver 

Develop new system; Wake Technical Information North Carolina $383,686 convert existing Community College Technology curriculum to online 

Expand existing West Virginia University West-Central Health Care $469,164 program; develop new at Parkersburg West Virginia curriculum 

Western Governors 

University Nationwide Health Care $500,000 Develop new program 

Note: Shaded rows indicate grantees in Cohort I that were visited in fall 2009. 

The types of organizations funded to implement these TBL programs are also diverse, as is the 

amount of funding provided by ETA. Grantees include universities and community colleges, 

private non-profit organizations, a state workforce agency, and a local workforce investment 

board (WIB). The size of the TBL grants also ranges widely, from a low of $154,018 to a high 

of $969,090. 

Finally, grantees vary in whether they are developing new training programs or are expanding, 

updating or changing existing programs. For example, several programs have planned to use 

their TBL grants to convert existing traditional training programs into online programs. 

Providing some underlying commonality to this diversity among grantees are a few key features 

required by ETA. All the grantees must: (1) develop innovative technology-based programs that 

can be shown to work toward achieving the initiative’s goals; (2) provide effective user support 

for all clients, including those from underserved populations and individuals with low levels of 

computer and technical proficiency; (3) ensure that TBL training programs lead to recognized 

I-3 
 

 

 

 

 

credentials; and (4) make use of existing demand-driven strategic partnerships in developing and 

implementing their TBL programs.2 

Overview of the TBL Evaluation 

The primary goals of the TBL evaluation are: (1) to understand the design and implementation 

processes undertaken by the various grantees and (2) to examine the outcomes, such as the 

number of credentials and degrees earned, that grantees produce through their TBL programs. 

These goals guided the development of a conceptual framework for the evaluation. This 

framework outlined the central features of the TBL grants and served as an important foundation 

for the evaluation. This framework includes contextual factors, program planning and design, 

recruitment and intake, delivery, program administration, partnerships and key outcomes. 

The evaluation’s conceptual framework was particularly useful in developing the evaluation’s 

research questions. These questions are organized into the nine categories summarized below 

(the questions themselves are presented in Appendix A): 

	 Contextual Factors. These questions are aimed at understanding how existing 

employer needs in targeted industries, overall economic conditions, and the 

characteristics of targeted participants affect the development, implementation, 

and success of the programs. 

	 Planning and Design. Questions in this category focus on the planning and 

design process for each program and the grantees’ TBL program objectives in 

terms of industry and participant focus. 

	 Program Administration, Organization, and Leadership. These questions 

examine TBL programmatic features, staffing structures, and reporting. 

	 Linkages and Partnerships. These questions are focused on the partnership 

arrangements established by TBL programs, ways in which resources are being 

According to ETA’s SGA for the TBL grants, the criteria and scoring (of up to 100 points) used to award the 

TBL grants was as follows: 30 points for “Expanding Training Opportunities,” (including 10 points for showing 

how the use of TBL would expand employment and training options, 10 points for showing how the TBL 

program would overcome barriers of distance and time, 7 points for “sustainability and scalability,” and 3 points 

for demonstrating the need for Federal investment); 20 points for demonstrating appropriate “demand-driven 

partnerships” (including eight points for demonstrating the strength of those partnerships, seven points for 

having partnerships with “high-growth/high-demand” industry partners, and five points for demonstrating the 

relevant organizational capacities of partners); 20 points for “program design, user support, and outcomes 

(including 10 points for proposed outcomes, 5 points for “user support,” and 5 points for “evaluation and data 

collection); 10 points for demonstrating that the grants would provide training leading to an “industry-recognized 

credential.” Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 120. Friday, June 20, 2008. Pp. 35155-35163. 

I-4 

2 
 

leveraged, the referral systems in place, and strategies for inter-partner 

communication. 

	 Recruitment and Intake. These questions examine the nature of the 

outreach/recruitment efforts for TBL programs, the intake/admissions process, 

criteria for participation, and the equipment and skills needed to participate in 

programs. 

	 Training Delivery. Questions in this category are focused on issues such as 

faculty involvement in training programs, the types of training programs 

developed and implemented, delivery modes and methods, and learning 

management systems (LMS). 

	 Additional Services. This category includes questions around other services 

such as placement assistance, career counseling, job readiness training and case 

management that grantees make available to the TBL participants. 

	 Outcomes. These questions focus on a variety of outcomes such as the number 

of participants enrolled in the TBL programs, the credentials or degrees attained 

by participants, and the level of participant and faculty satisfaction with the 

program. 

	 Implementation Challenges and Promising Practices. This final category 

includes questions aimed at examining major challenges in design and program
 

delivery and how those challenges have been addressed, as well as the emergence 

of promising practices. 

Data Collection 

To answer these research questions, the TBL evaluation includes several distinct data collection 

activities. First, to capture basic information on grantee implementation plans and timelines, 

evaluation staff members are conducting two rounds of phone reconnaissance calls with 

grantees. The first round of these calls occurred in summer and fall 2009, and data from these 

calls were used in the preparation of this report. The second round will take place during fall 

2010. 

The second primary data collection activity is conducting site visits. Using information collected 

during the first round of phone reconnaissance calls, grantees were grouped into two cohorts 

based on their implementation status. Grantees in the first cohort (all early implementation sites) 

were visited between August and November 2009. This cohort, which is referred to as Cohort I, 

includes the following programs: 

	 the CareerLink TBL program (focused on information technology) at AbleDisabled Advocacy, Inc. (ADA); 

	 the Care and Training Supports (CATS) program to provide training to mental 

health direct care workers at The Guidance Center (TGC); 

I-5 
 

	 the Global Energy Management (GEM) master’s degree program at the 

University of Colorado, Denver (UCD); 

	 the Nurse Return to Work through Technology Expansion3 project to recertify 

registered nurses and licensed practical nurses whose nursing certification has 

lapsed at Greenville Technical College (GTC); 

	 the Geospatial Career Pipeline Initiative (GCPI) on geographic information 

systems at Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA); and 

	 the TBL program (focused on IT) at Ogden-Weber Applied Technology College 

(OWATC). 

These sites were visited and included in Cohort I solely because they were the earliest 

implementers. The second cohort, comprising the fourteen remaining grantees and referred to 

herein as Cohort II, will be visited from April to July 2010. 

Each site visit includes both a virtual component and an onsite component. Site visitors first 

carry out the virtual component, which consists of the following activities: 

	 a thorough examination of the grantee’s LMS and all grant-related online courses 

and materials; 

	 convening of a virtual focus group of two to four current program participants; 

and 

	 observation of a synchronous virtual activity.4 

Thereafter, site visitors conduct the onsite component, traveling to the grantee’s primary location 

to collect additional data over a period of a day and a half. During this onsite visit, evaluation 

staff meet with multiple respondents, including, as appropriate, the grant administrator, project 

director, director of e-learning, instructional designer, instructors, case managers, and program 

partners, which may include employers, members of the local public workforce system, 

educational institutions, and community-based organizations (CBOs). If possible, site visitors 

also observe a program activity, such as an in-person training session. 

The third data collection activity is requesting copies of required quarterly reports submitted to 

ETA by grantees. Of particular interest is the High Growth and Community-based Job Training 

Grants (HGCJTG) quarterly report (ETA 9134), which is submitted by all grantees. These 

3	 For brevity, this grantee is referred to as Nurse Return to Work throughout this report. 

4	 A synchronous virtual activity is an activity that occurs via the Internet in real time. By contrast, an 

asynchronous virtual activity is an activity that is available at any time. 

I-6 
reports primarily contain cumulative aggregate-level data on TBL participant demographics, 

services provided, and outcomes. 

Two other data collection activities related to the evaluation may take place at a later date if 

additional funding is available from ETA. These activities would include: 1) gathering detailed 

participant-level data from grantees’ management information systems (MIS) to supplement data 

collected from quarterly report submissions; and 2) conducting an online survey of TBL 

participants. These two activities were initially planned to occur in the spring of 2010 as part of 

this evaluation, but due to delays in receiving approval for them from the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), they could not be conducted as part of this evaluation. 

Deliverables 

The TBL evaluation includes two primary deliverables. The first is this interim report, which, as 

noted above, is based primarily on data collected during site visits to Cohort I grantees. In 

addition, limited information from HGCJTG quarterly reports from the second and third quarters 

of 2009 is used in this interim report. 

The second deliverable is a final report that will be completed in spring 2011. This final report 

will be based on all data collected during the evaluation (particularly data collected during site 

visits to all 20 grantees) and represent a comprehensive accounting of all findings amassed over 

the duration of the evaluation. 

Overview of this Interim Report 

The remainder of this report summarizes early findings from the evaluation, primarily based on 

data collected from the six Cohort I grantees visited during the first set of site visits. As 

discussed above, data from grantee quarterly reports were also used, although those data were 

very limited. 

The six Cohort I grantees on which this report focuses may differ in meaningful ways from the 

other fourteen TBL grantees—particularly because each Cohort I grantee is an early implementer 

and early implementation may be associated, in unknown ways, with certain program 

characteristics. Consequently, the findings presented in this report may not be generalizable to 

the broader group of grantees. In addition, even for the Cohort I grantees, this report presents 

results from only their first year of implementation, and thus these findings should be considered 

only preliminary. 

I-7 
The report begins with Chapter II, which presents an overview of TBL training programs among 

Cohort I grantees. Chapter III then presents a discussion of the planning and design processes 

used by these grantees. Chapter IV discusses the training methods and program content used by 

grantees. Chapter V then describes how Cohort I grantees are administering their TBL programs 

and the partnerships and linkages they have developed to support their programs and Chapter VI 

provides a brief discussion of grantee outcomes to date. The report concludes by highlighting 

some of the challenges encountered by these TBL initiatives, as well as the promising practices 

that have emerged. One-page summaries of each of the six Cohort I grantees are included as 

Appendix B. 

I-8 
 

 

 

 

 

II. OVERVIEW OF TBL TRAINING PROGRAMS 

The six grantees in Cohort I provide a variety of TBL training programs that target different 

populations, train participants in several different fields, and lead to different kinds of 

certifications. This chapter provides an overview of the key characteristics of these programs: 

what types of training they offer, how they limit participation to targeted groups through 

eligibility criteria and skill prerequisites, how they orient new participants to their programs, how 

they hire instructors, what software they use, and what additional non-training services they 

make available to program participants. 

Types of Training Programs 

The six TBL grantees in Cohort I are providing training in five different fields: information 

technology (IT), geographic information systems (GIS), energy management, nursing, and 

mental health direct care (please see Exhibit II-1).1 Although only one of the programs (CATS) 

requires participants to be incumbent workers in the field, two others primarily serve incumbent 

workers, and the other three serve mostly unemployed or under-employed workers.2 

The purpose of the training programs and the credentials they lead to also vary: one program 

results in a master’s degree, three lead to certificates, one leads to reinstatement of a nursing 

license, and one helps workers to complete certain trainings required for continued employment 

working with developmentally disabled and mental health populations in Michigan. Of the 

programs offering formal certifications, three offer only one or two different credentials, while 

one IT program offers more than six different certificates and the other at least fifteen. 

1	 Direct care workers are defined by TGC in their Statement of Work for the TBL grant as workers who “provide 

supervision and physical and emotional care for vulnerable individuals, including elderly and disabled 

populations.” The grantee is focusing on direct care workers who serve developmentally disabled and mental 

health populations. 

2	 Both the OWATC TBL program and CareerLink can and do serve some incumbent workers (and, as will be 

discussed in Chapter III, OWATC originally expected incumbent workers to be in the majority). Only Nurse 

Return to Work does not really serve incumbent workers, since the program targets individuals who have not 

worked as nurses for five or more years. 

II-1 
 

 

Exhibit II-1: 

Essential Characteristics of Cohort I Programs 

Nurse Return 

CareerLink CATS GEM to Work GCPI3 OWATC 

Grantee Able-Disabled 

Advocacy, 

Inc. 

The Guidance 

Center 

University of 

Colorado, 

Denver 

Greenville 

Technical 

College 

Northern 

Virginia 

Community 

College 

(NOVA) 

OgdenWeber 

Applied 

Technology 

College 

Training Field IT Direct Care (for 

mental health) 

Energy 

management 

Nursing GIS IT 

Type of 

Credential(s) 

Earned 

Industry 

Certification 

Required for 

continued 

employment 

Masters Registered 

Nurse (RN) or 

Licensed 

Practical Nurse 

(LPN) license 

Certificate Industry 

Certification/ 

Certificate 

# of Certificates/ 

Credentials 

offered 

6 04 1 2 1 16 

Length of 

Program 

About 10 

months (10– 

12 weeks for 

the online 

portion) 

30 minutes to 3 

hours 

18 months 4 and a half to 

6 months 

(online portion 

must be 

completed in 

90 days+ skills 

lab) 

4 semesters 

(18 -24 

months) 

10 months 

for a 

certificate; 

individual 

courses 

leading to 

industry 

certification 

take 2–8 

weeks 

Due to the variation in content and credentials offered, as well as in the students served, the TBL 

programs also vary considerably in length, with the longest lasting for 24 months and the shortest 

for as little as 30 minutes. 

Despite their variation in length, content, and targeted students, five of six Cohort I programs 

share an important characteristic: they use the Internet as the primary medium for providing their 

training (please see Exhibit II-2). This reliance on online course delivery does not necessarily 

mean that the programs are completely virtual; all but one of these primarily online programs 

Although the GCPI program will eventually offer dual enrollment programs with some area high schools, and the 

program is also in the process of putting online a course introducing GIS to students who are not yet in the GIS 

certificate program, in this chapter and most other sections of the report where GCPI is discussed, GCPI is 

referred to synonymously with the GIS Career Studies Certificate program, which is the GCPI program’s major 

activity. 

II-2 

3 
All All5 All All Only two GIS 

certification 

classes are 

online6 

Internet 

Technology, 

Intro. to IT; 

Intro. to 

Prog.; A+ 

Certification I 

course7 

In-Person 

Requirements 

3-hour 

session twice 

a month; 

internship 

None 4 days 

orientation at 

beginning of 

each quarter 

Orientation, 

skills labs, 

one exam, 

and 

externship 

All but the two 

online 

courses are 

in-person 

All except 

introductory 

courses are 

entirely inperson 

 

 

(CATS) has some kind of in-person requirement. The sixth program, the TBL program at 

OWATC, also uses the Internet as a training medium, but only four of its courses are available 

online and it relies primarily on in-person computer-based training. 

Exhibit II-2: 

Use of Online Learning Among Cohort I Programs 

Nurse Return 

CareerLink CATS GEM to Work GCPI OWATC 

Courses 

Available 

Online 

Bulk of 

Training 

Online? 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

Prerequisite Skills, Eligibility Criteria, and Application 

Requirements 

The six Cohort I programs have widely varying guidelines and rules for admission. These rules 

and guidelines exist in three distinct areas: prerequisite skills in the area of computer use; 

eligibility criteria related to the applicant’s educational attainment, employment, place of 

residence, or disability status; and requirements for the application process. 

4	 The CATS program expects to allow students to be able to access the College of Direct Support’s Direct Care 

Provider Care and Training Supports certificate program by December 2009. 

5	 This included only three courses at the time of the site visit, although more are expected to be added soon. 

6	 Due to the cost and computer memory requirements of software required for online GIS courses, many GCPI 

students also regularly use the program’s computer lab to complete assignments. However, the program is 

working to eliminate these problems through installation of desktop virtualization, which is discussed in more 

detail below. 

7	 OWATC plans to have four more of its courses available online by July 2010. 

II-3 
 

Variations in each of these areas are linked directly to differences in the populations targeted by 

the programs. Five of the six Cohort I grantees are targeting fairly specific populations for their 

TBL programs (please see Exhibit II-3). Three of these grantees are targeting individuals who 

currently work or have previous experience in a specific industry or occupation. A-DA 

(CareerLink) is targeting disabled individuals and OWATC was targeting incumbent workers, 

but is now recruiting anyone who is interested in an IT career. To ensure that it reaches its 

targeted population, a program may have to establish certain eligibility criteria in addition to skill 

prerequisites. Exhibit II-3 describes each program’s target group and details the various ways in 

which each program controls who may apply. 

As can be seen in Exhibit II-3, eligibility requirements differ significantly. Nurse Return to 

Work requires students to have been licensed nurses in the past; other programs require students 

to have specific characteristics or credentials, such as a disability (CareerLink), or a 

baccalaureate of arts or sciences (BA/BS) degree (GEM).8 By contrast, OWATC has an “open 

door” policy, allowing enrollment by anyone who lives close enough to the school to visit the 

program’s lab on a regular basis. 

To be admitted to any of the six TBL programs, individuals must submit some type of 

registration or application form. In addition, three of the programs require additional materials 

for admissions. Both CareerLink and the OWATC program, for example, require applicants to 

undergo several assessments prior to enrollment, and CareerLink also requires an in-person 

interview to assess motivation. GEM, as a university graduate program, requires copies of 

undergraduate transcripts, Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) scores, and three 

professional references. The additional materials required for admission to CareerLink, the 

OWATC program, and GEM are used to assess motivation and suitability, as well as to prioritize 

certain students when the number of applicants is greater than can be enrolled. 

Consistent with the fact that these programs are technology-based, five of the Cohort I programs 

require applicants to have certain computer skills or experience. Although for two of these 

programs—CATS and Nurse Return to Work—these skills are as basic as being able to use two 

IT training programs—CareerLink and the OWATC program—may require much more 

extensive computer skills depending on the certification a student wants to complete. 8 

The GCPI program will allow students at partner high schools to co-enroll in certain GIS classes beginning fall 

2010. 

II-4 

8 
Exhibit II-3: 

 Eligibility Criteria, Skill Prerequisites, and Application Requirements of Cohort I 

Programs 

Computer Skill Application 

Target Group Eligibility Criteria Prerequisites Requirements 

CareerLink Disabled individuals Must be disabled and 

demonstrate 

competence in English 

and math and 

motivation/ self-direction 

500 hours work 

experience & 

additional skills 

depending on desired 

certification(s) 

Submit resume, 

application, & 

motivation questions; 

undergo assessment 

of math, English and 

computer skills; 

complete in-person 

interview 

CATS Direct care workers 

who need to 

complete entry-level 

or annual 

requirements 

Must work in Wayne 

County, Michigan 

Have a valid email 

account 

Fill out online form 

and provide email 

address 

GCPI None Must have a high school 

diploma or equivalent 

Understand 

fundamental 

computer 

applications and 

concepts 

Submit application 

GEM Individuals with 

professional 

experience in energy 

industry 

Must have BA/BS 

degree 

None Submit application, 

undergraduate 

transcripts, GMAT 

scores & three 

professional 

references 

Nurse Return 

to Work 

Nurses who intend to 

return to nursing 

after five or more 

years out of the field 

Must have held U.S. 

nursing license and 

been trained in an 

accredited nursing 

program 

Ability to use email & 

attach/ download 

documents 

Submit online 

application 

OWATC 

TBL program 

Originally incumbent 

workers, but open to 

all 

None Ability to use the 

Internet; additional 

skills depending on 

desired 

certification(s) 

Complete application 

& undergo 

assessment of 

interests, abilities and 

work values 

CareerLink also requires that applicants have at least 500 hours of work experience with 

computers, although this requirement can be waived for students who have experience with 

computers outside of a work setting or are very motivated. At GEM—the only program that 

does not have explicit computer skill prerequisites—program staff explained that the program 

does not need to mandate computer skills because the requirements for a baccalaureate degree 

and professional experience ensure that all enrollees come with at least basic computer skills. 

To assess computer skills, two of the grantees require applicants to undergo a skills test. At 

CareerLink, this consists of requiring an applicant to participate in a simulation of the online 

course he or she wishes to take, while for the OWATC program, applicants complete a skills 

II-5 
 

assessment.9 In both cases, individuals not able to demonstrate sufficient skills are required to 

complete remedial computer classes before admission or are counseled to switch to a different 

program. 

Although GTC does not currently require applicants to take a computer assessment for admission 

to Nurse Return to Work, it is considering adding such a requirement due to the extremely low 

skill levels of a number of recent students. The program manager explained that these students 

have great difficulty succeeding in the online portion of the program, and an assessment would 

help the program to ensure that future participants have at least the minimal skills required. 

Orientations 

Five of the six Cohort I grantees provide an orientation for new students (please see Exhibit II4). Program staff from these organizations noted that orientations for TBL programs, 

particularly those with primarily online content, are critical because students spend so much of 

their time working on their own without easy access to help from an instructor. In support of this 

observation, two students in a primarily online program complained that their orientation was too 

short and not comprehensive enough. 

The only program that does not provide an orientation is CATS; it does not do so because the 

technology it uses is very basic and the courses it offers are relatively simple (no instructor 

interaction and no grades or credentials awarded). However, the Virtual Center for Excellence, 

which hosts the CATS programs, does make available hard-copy users’ manuals for its website 

and is developing an online version. The center’s website also has a link to an online tutorial 

that will walk students through the process of setting up a Yahoo email account. 

Cohort I TBL program orientations typically cover the program’s schedule, course syllabi, 

attendance and grading policies, and LMS.10 In four of these orientations, students are provided 

with an opportunity to log in to the LMS to make sure their login names and passwords are 

working and to begin using the system. 

9	 CareerLink staff noted that an even more basic test occurs earlier in the application process when applicants are 

required to email in several application-related documents. If a student is unable to attach these documents to an 

email and send them in, the program will inform the applicant that he or she needs additional computer skills 

before he or she can participate in the program. 

10	 These systems are described in more detail below. 

II-6 
Exhibit II-4: 

Orientations Provided by Cohort I Grantees 

Nurse Return 

CareerLink CATS GEM to Work GCPI OWATC 

Orientation 

provided? 

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Group or 

individual 

Group Not applicable 

(N/A) 

Group Group Group Individual 

In-person or 

online 

In-person N/A In-person In-person In-person or 

online 

In-person 

Length 3 hours (part 

of first in-class 

session) 

N/A 4 days every 

quarter 

4 hours 3 hours 2–3 hours 

Four of these orientations are provided in person, despite the fact that three of these four TBL 

programs provide the bulk of their training online. The associate director of one of these 

programs—GEM—said that his program opted for an in-person orientation because it allows 

better opportunities for students to begin developing relationships with instructors and peers. He 

feels these relationships are crucial for enabling students to work together collaboratively online. 

Furthermore, GEM’s associate director of online programs said that in-person orientations make 

it easier for TBL instructors and staff to help students overcome any initial technical problems. 

Two programs offer ways for students to review parts of their orientations. GEM tapes its 

orientation sessions and puts them online for students to review, and both GEM and Nurse 

Return to Work make copies of orientation materials and send them to students—Nurse Return 

to Work via a DVD and GEM via a flash drive. 

Five of the Cohort I programs provide orientations in a group setting. As students can join 

OWATC’s TBL program anytime there is space, formal, group orientations are not practical for 

the program. CareerLink, the other Cohort I program that provides an informal orientation, does 

so because its extensive admission process gives new students a strong understanding of the 

program prior to enrollment, thus obviating the need for a formal orientation. 

Most Cohort I program orientations are from two hours to four hours in length. GEM’s 

orientation, which lasts for four days and includes required activities from 7 am to 6 pm, is the 

most extensive. To promote additional interaction between students, all GEM students, even 

those who live in Denver, are required to stay overnight at the hotel where the orientation is held. 

GEM staff and students also organize required social events such as happy hours and dinners for 

the evening hours. Despite its length and the cost to students of staying in a hotel for four days, 

II-7 
 

 

 

 

GEM students expressed satisfaction with the program’s orientation, citing the numerous 

opportunities for interaction it affords. 

Two Cohort I programs provide more than one orientation per cohort of students. For example, 

GEM holds an orientation at the beginning of each quarter. GEM respondents said that because 

the program’s instructors change each quarter, quarterly orientations allow students to develop 

relationships with their new instructors. CareerLink, which previously held only one orientation 

at the beginning of the program, also recently added an orientation at the beginning of the test 

preparation segment of its program, after a number of students in its first cohort failed to pass 

certification exams. 

Instructors 

At the time of the site visits, Cohort I TBL programs had from one to four instructors (please see 

Exhibit II-5). Four programs hired these instructional staff on a permanent basis, while two 

programs—GEM and CATS—hire instructors on a contract basis. GEM uses contracted 

instructors so that it can hire subject-matter experts to cover specific courses, rather than hire 

generalists or maintain a much larger staff of permanent instructors. These experts can be hired 

even if they are located out of state or out of the country (for example, at the time of the site 

visit, one GEM instructor was based in Calgary and another in California). 

Exhibit II-5: 

Number of TBL Instructors at Cohort I Programs 

Nurse Return 

CareerLink to Work GCPI OWATC CATS GEM 

# of Instructors 1 211 4 4 412 413 

Experienced in 

TBL Methods? 

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 

11	 If another partner college is able to enroll four local students, the program will hire another instructor to conduct 

the skills lab portion of the program at the partner college. 

12	 The program has thus far recorded presentations by four instructors; however, these instructors taught only one 

in-person class session and are not part of the program on an on-going basis. 

13	 The program hires two instructors per cohort per quarter. Eventually, once a third cohort is added in January, the 

program will have six instructors at any one time. These instructors are contract employees and thus may have 

no continuing relationship with the program after a quarter is finished 

II-8 
Prior to developing their TBL courses, instructors for GEM had not taught or developed courses 

using TBL and online methods. Consequently, they had to rely on training and assistance 

provided by the program to effectively prepare and deliver training content in a TBL format. As 

part of this training, the program’s associate director of online programs provides an orientation 

for them to both the LMS and the software used for recording lectures. He also sends instructors 

an orientation and information packet prior to this session. In addition, GEM’s associate director 

of programs, who also serves as the program’s instructional designer, assists instructors with 

converting or developing their courses using the program’s template for online instruction, which 

requires the use of bulletin boards and recorded lectures, among other things. 

CATS program instructors also had no prior experience in teaching online courses. However, 

they received no training on online methods. Instead, instructors simply conducted a standard inperson course lecture, which was recorded, edited, and uploaded to the LMS by grantee technical 

staff. 

No matter their level of experience, instructors at all grantees except TGC receive on-going 

assistance and support on how to teach effectively in a TBL format. For example, at NOVA, 

GTC, and UCD, a staff person such as an instructional designer or online mentor provides 

ongoing assistance to instructors teaching online courses. These colleges or their TBL programs 

also provide regular refresher or update courses to instructors on using their LMS. GTC also 

recently developed a special help desk just for faculty teaching online courses (and OWATC is 

planning to do this as well). 

Instructor Satisfaction with TBL Approach 

In general, instructors expressed satisfaction with teaching TBL programs. For example, one 

GEM instructor noted that he liked that students were obligated to participate in discussion 

boards, saying that it is nice not to “have to worry about students just showing up and zoning 

out,” and that this “generates a lot of beneficial interactions between students and faculty.” 

Another GEM instructor talked about how he liked the variety of TBL formats used by the 

program and another commented that an online medium allows for more thoughtful 

contemplation about subject matter. 

Respondents from two grantees, however, noted some challenges in relation to TBL program 

instruction. At UCD, the associate director of programs for GEM noted the difficulty of 

convincing instructors that the online learning environment demands a different type of teaching, 

requiring changes to their syllabi and lecture approaches. Two GEM instructors also noted that it 

was difficult to record their lectures in advance without an audience; one likened this to lecturing 

into a mirror and the other said that it was impossible to know whether students were 

II-9 
 

understanding the material without being able to see their faces. A third GEM instructor said 

that creating PowerPoint presentations and lectures of the right length for an online audience was 

a challenge when he first began teaching for GEM. 

Respondents at OWATC noted a different type of challenge: the large amount of one-on-one 

time instructors need to give to students. OWATC’s TBL program has been very popular, and 

finding time to work with all of these students individually has been difficult for the program’s 

two primary instructors. As a result of this challenge, OWATC’s TBL program was forced to 

cap enrollment. 

Learning Management Systems 

Each of the TBL grantees uses an electronic LMS, sometimes also called a course management 

system, to house and manage its TBL training programs. Users—students, faculty, and staff— 

access these systems by pointing their web browsers to a specific website and entering an 

assigned login name and password. Once logged in, users navigate systems that look similar to 

standard websites and, according to both students and instructors, are quite easy to navigate via 

tabs and menus (please see the example of an LMS home page in Exhibit II-6). 

Cohort I grantees use their LMS primarily to perform the following functions: 

 allow students to access training materials, including recorded video lectures and 

PowerPoint presentations, via the Internet;14
 

 inform students of assignments; 

 assess/test students; 

 track student grades and/or certifications; 

 provide avenues for communication between and among students and 

instructors.15
 

14	 OWATC’s TBL program is primarily provided in-person. However, because instruction is completely selfpaced, students use the grantee’s LMS to access their assignments and take tests in the college’s IT computer 

lab. 

15	 A more detailed discussion of the use of these functions in TBL training courses is presented in Chapter IV. 

II-10 
Exhibit II-6: 

LMS Example: CareerLink TBL Program 

Four of the six LMS also allow program staff to closely monitor student usage of training 

material. They track how long students are logged in and how long they spend on a particular 

page or module. At least one LMS—the system used by GTC—can also track how long a 

student spends on specific tests, and it can grant specific students additional time to complete a 

test. This system can even monitor how long a student spends on individual test questions. 

Finally, at least three of the systems used by Cohort I programs also capture limited 

demographic, background, and contact information for students. However, all but one of these 

programs capture these data more extensively on separate management information systems, as 

do the three other programs that do not use their LMS to capture demographic data at all. 

Four of the Cohort I grantees—all institutions of higher education—use the same LMS: 

Blackboard Learn. Each of these institutions, either individually or as part of a consortium, has 

purchased this system for use by all of its online programs. Since the cost of the LMS is covered 

by the school or shared among many programs, individual programs pay little or even nothing 

for its use. For example, through its membership in the Utah Education Network, a consortium 

II-11 
of public higher education institutions, OWATC’s TBL program received free access to 

Blackboard Learn. Consequently, even if they are not completely happy with its functionality, 

some programs (GEM and OWATC’s program) continue to use Blackboard Learn only because 

they cannot afford to pay for a different system on their own. 

By contrast, the two nonprofit grantees, A-DA (CareerLink) and TGC (CATS), opted to use a 

contractor to develop an LMS customized specifically for their programs. In the case of A-DA, 

the organization hired SkillSoft—the same organization that developed the online training 

programs it uses—to develop its LMS. 

Cohort I respondents noted a few challenges related to their LMS. Perhaps the biggest challenge 

was faced by GTC, which experienced serious problems with its computer server and its ability 

to host online courses. As a result, the LMS stopped working on numerous occasions, freezing 

course material and activities. This caused major headaches both for the program and students, 

one of whom reported that a system freeze caused her to have to repeat a test. Although it is 

unclear what caused these problems—possibly improper installation of Blackboard Learn—the 

college has since decided to outsource the hosting of its online courses to Blackboard. 

In addition to the server problems faced by GTC, respondents at both GEM and OWATC’s TBL 

program reported some challenges with using Blackboard Learn. The associate director of 

online programs at GEM, for example, noted that he had difficulty developing the community 

feature of GEM’s LMS page. One of the instructors for the TBL program at OWATC similarly 

found Blackboard Learn to be a bit “cumbersome,” forcing her to redesign some of the A+ 

Certification I course she was putting online, which resulted in a delay in opening that course for 

online enrollment. Finally, GEM instructors complained about the grade center feature of 

Blackboard Learn, finding it difficult to understand and use. 

Participant Technical Support 

TBL students at all Cohort I grantees can receive technical support from at least one designated 

program staff person, such as their instructor or a customer support specialist. In addition, 

students at five of the six Cohort I programs also have access to support via help tabs and/or user 

guides available on the LMS, which typically provide textual information on numerous help 

topics. Students at four grantees can also contact a help desk or “mentoring” program, via live 

chat, email, or phone. These help lines are operated by either the grantee or the LMS developer 

or both. Typically, staff at these help lines are available after business hours, at least via email. 

Despite the existence of various sources of support, students in at least three Cohort I 

programs—CareerLink, GEM, and the OWATC program—receive most or all of their technical 

II-12 
support from program staff. According to respondents in these programs, this is due to the fact 

that program staff can provide the best answers to specific questions about the technology used 

by programs. In addition, in programs where students have regular in-person contact with 

program instructors, such as CareerLink and the OWATC program, students find it is easiest to 

ask their instructors for help. By contrast, students from Nurse Return to Work said they found 

GTC’s help desk to be helpful in dealing with LMS problems. For example, one student 

commented specifically that staff from the college’s help desk provided particularly useful 

support during the summer of 2009, when the college’s computer servers malfunctioned. 

Accommodations for Disabled Students 

Each of the Cohort I TBL grantees has made accommodations for disabled students. For 

example, A-DA’s computer lab is wheelchair accessible and has a special monitor for use by the 

visually impaired. A-DA also made sure that all of CareerLink’s training components are 

compatible with various types of screen-reading software, so that they can be either viewed or 

heard, or their text zoomed. Somewhat similarly, Blackboard Learn, used by four of the Cohort I 

grantees, makes all content available in forms that can be viewed or heard via a screen reader. 

TGC makes closed-captioning available for all of its online courses and uses sign language 

interpreters for the live sessions it holds when it tapes online courses. OWATC, which is 

currently serving a student with a visual impairment, made the course textbook available online 

in simple text format so that the student could increase the font size to see better. 

Additional Services for Participants 

In addition to training, each of the Cohort I programs except CATS provides some additional 

services to TBL students. These services primarily include employment services such as career 

counseling, placement services, and soft skills or job readiness training. A few students also 

receive case management and support services. 

Career Counseling and Other Employment Services 

Assisting TBL training program graduates with finding employment is a goal of all of the Cohort 

I programs except CATS (which serves only incumbent workers). The main employment service 

that each of these five programs provides (or plans to provide) is career counseling from program 

staff. At OWATC and GCPI, program instructors provide career advice, while at other programs 

such as GEM and Nurse Return to Work, the project director or associate director of operations 

fulfills this role. 

II-13 
 

In addition, students in these five programs also have access to career counseling via career 

centers that are operated by staff who work for a separate program or department operated by the 

grantee organization. For instance, each of the higher education grantees operates an on-campus 

career center that is open to TBL students. These centers have career counselors available to 

provide assistance and also often maintain postings of available jobs. However, because these 

campus-wide career centers are not focused on the specific TBL fields, TBL students do not 

commonly make use of them. Although it does not operate a formal career counseling center, ADA offers career counseling, as well as a job club, to its CareerLink clients. 

Three of the programs—CareerLink, Nurse Return to Work, and GCPI—require that students 

participate in internships with employers as part of the program. These internships, which are 

sometimes paid and sometimes not, are seen by the programs as a way for students to gain 

needed work experience and establish contacts with employers that might hire them after 

graduation. For their part, employers see these internships as a way to test out potential 

employees at little cost. 

At least three of the Cohort I programs (CareerLink, GEM, and GCPI) also plan to provide job 

placement services to TBL participants. These three programs have been working hard to 

develop partnerships with employers that can hire TBL program graduates, as well as assist their 

programs in other ways.16 

Finally, three TBL programs—Nurse Return to Work, OWATC, and CareerLink—also provide 

TBL students with soft skills or job readiness training. For example, as part of the curriculum, 

Nurse Return to Work participants receive training in communications skills and maintaining a 

professional appearance. OWATC students enrolled in the TBL certificate program in IT are 

required to take job readiness classes that cover topics such as interviewing and developing a 

resume, and other students can take these courses as electives. Similarly, CareerLink students 

can receive instruction from A-DA staff on interviewing and resume preparation. In addition to 

being able to receive soft skill or job readiness training directly from grantees, students coenrolled in certain partner programs such as those funded by the Workforce Investment Act 

(WIA) may also receive such training from the partner program.17 

In general, programs have planned for participants to participate in internships and receive career 

counseling and placement assistance toward the ends of their training programs. For example, 

16 Partnerships with employers are described in greater detail in Chapter V. 

17 Co-enrollment is discussed in more detail in the next section and in Chapter V. 

II-14 
 

 

Nurse Return to Work students receive career counseling from the project manager during their 

exit interviews. GEM is still developing this aspect of its program because its first cohort of 

students is still two quarters from graduation. 

Case Management and Support Services 

Case management for Cohort I TBL students is only provided when a participant is co-enrolled 

in a partner agency’s program and that program pays at least a portion of the student’s tuition 

and other costs.18 These case management services are then provided by the partner agency, 

although TBL program staff members communicate regularly about the student’s progress with 

partner case managers. In some cases, TBL staff members even work with case managers to 

ensure that the TBL training is appropriate for a particular individual. Typically students are first 

enrolled in the partner program, which assigns a case manager, and this case manager then refers 

the student to the TBL program for training. 

Students who receive case management services are usually eligible to receive support services 

from these same partner organizations as well. The receipt of such services is usually facilitated 

by the student’s case manager. According to TBL program staff, the most common type of 

support service offered by these partner agencies is transportation assistance. For example, 

OWATC TBL students co-enrolled in Ogden-Weber Community Action Agency’s Education to 

Careers program receive bus passes to allow them to travel back and forth to the college. 

CareerLink students co-enrolled in Vocational Rehabilitation are provided with bus passes, 

assisted with paratransit arrangements, or provided with funding to modify personal vehicles to 

allow them to travel to program activities. 

Summary 

Cohort I TBL programs are operating training programs in IT, health care, and energy 

management that lead to certificates, license reinstatement, and master’s degrees. These 

programs serve both incumbent and unemployed or under-employed workers, last for periods 

ranging from 30 minutes to 18 months, and provide the bulk of their content online. They also 

have varying eligibility requirements, with some requiring very specific characteristics such as a 

disability or a previous nursing license. Computer skill prerequisites also differ, with some 

programs requiring only basic skills while others demand more extensive skills. 

18 At the time of the Cohort I site visits, only four of six programs, CareerLink, Nurse Return to Work, GCPI, and 

the OWATC program, had co-enrollment partnerships with local agencies. These partnerships are discussed in 

more detail in Chapter V. 

II-15 
Most programs include group orientations, typically lasting for two to four hours, and covering 

topics such as the program’s schedule, course syllabi, grading policies, and LMS. To allow for 

stronger relationships with program staff and peers, most of these orientations are provided in 

person, even among programs that provide the bulk of their training online. 

Cohort I programs have from one to four instructors, hired on either a permanent or contract 

basis. Most programs provide ongoing training in TBL methods and technical support to these 

instructors, with more assistance provided to those with no previous TBL experience. Partly as a 

consequence of this support, most TBL instructors said they are satisfied with teaching in a TBL 

program, with some even commenting on the advantages of TBL courses over traditional ones. 

However, instructors did note a few challenges, primarily related to becoming accustomed to 

teaching without a live audience, or the burden of working one-on-one with students in a selfpaced program. 

Each of the Cohort I programs uses an LMS, most commonly Blackboard Learn, to allow 

students to access training materials and assessments and to track student progress. These 

systems are also commonly used as a means of communication among students and instructors. 

Accommodations to these systems have also been made to allow disabled students to access 

them. Due to the complexity of these systems, all Cohort I programs provide at least one avenue 

for technical support to students, usually from a program staff person. Despite this assistance, 

respondents did note a few LMS-related challenges, including server problems and issues with 

certain functions. 

Finally, all Cohort I programs provide or plan to provide certain additional services. These 

include career counseling, placement services, internships or externships, and soft skills or job 

readiness training. Students who are co-enrolled with certain partners may also receive case 

management and support services. 

II-16 
 

 

 

 

 

III. PLANNING AND DESIGN 

This chapter describes how the six Cohort I grantees planned and designed their TBL programs. 

The chapter begins with a discussion of TBL program goals and continues with a description of 

the programs’ planning and design processes and the factors that influenced them. 

Program Goals 

The major goals for the TBL programs in Cohort I fall within two general categories: (1) 

increasing access to education and training and (2) improving the quality of educational content 

and delivery. These goals were predicated on what program staff felt were the advantages of 

TBL and how it could help their programs and the students and industries they served. These 

perceived advantages of TBL are illustrated below in Exhibit III-I. They are discussed in more 

detail throughout the sections that follow, particularly in terms of how they help students 

overcome barriers to continuing education and how they shaped program design. 

Exhibit III-1: 

Perceived Advantages of TBL 

Nurse 

Return 

Career to 

Link GEM Work CATS GCPI OWATC 

Overcomes geographic boundaries     

Provides flexibility for time-constrained 

individuals 

     

Strengthens program infrastructure     

Extends access to a greater number of 

people 

   

Increases the quality and quantity of a 

specific workforce sector 

     

III-1 
 

 

 

Increasing Access to Education and Training 

With the exception of the GEM program, a primary goal for the TBL programs in Cohort I is to 

increase access to education and/or training. This goal was formulated in response to perceived 

industry needs for additional trained workers, particularly in the fields of information technology 

and health care, both of which are described as “growing industries” with similarly growing labor 

needs. The goal of increasing access was also the result of a desire to help students overcome 

geographic or time barriers that keep them from pursuing or furthering their educations.1 

Improving Quality of Education Content and Instructional Delivery 

Improving educational content and instructional delivery is another major goal of the TBL 

programs in Cohort I. For programs that were already in existence prior to receiving the TBL 

grant, such as those at OWATC, TGC, and NOVA, the TBL grant enabled the grantees to make 

structural improvements by adding more computers or software, updating hardware, and piloting 

new software tools for instructional delivery. OWATC used TBL grant funds, in addition to 

matching funds from the college, to purchase computer parts for 40 additional lab computers. 

The IT students then built and networked these computers, and OWATC expanded its lab space 

to accommodate the new computers. TGC is updating its website to enable users to have greater 

access to courses and other resources. For example, it added a link to the College of Direct 

Support’s online continuing education library. By purchasing access to this library, CATS 

participants are able to take advantage of a wealth of educational modules that are approved by 

the University of Minnesota. NOVA began the process of shifting to desktop virtualization to 

run its GIS-related software programs. Desktop virtualization operates under a “thin-client” 

model, wherein the bulk of computer operations is handled through a central server as opposed to 

via individual computers. NOVA is designating a central server at the college through which to 

run its GIS programs, thus eliminating the need for students to invest in expensive hardware that 

would otherwise be needed to run GIS programs on their personal computers. As such, more 

students will be able to take advantage of online GIS course offerings. 

For the CATS program, the TBL grant helps improve instructional delivery by streamlining 

training opportunities across three geographic zones in Wayne County. Prior to the CATS 

program, direct care workers were required to undergo training from the mental health training 

and employment agencies assigned to the specific zones in which they worked. That meant that 

if a direct care worker worked in more than one zone within the county, he or she was required to 

participate in two separate training programs under different agencies, despite the fact that the 

Cohort I programs’ ability to help students overcome these barriers is discussed in more detail in Chapter VI. 

III-2 

1 
training covered the same material. This was redundant for the student and an ineffective use of 

resources for the training agencies. The CATS program enabled these agencies to work together 

to standardize course material and offer courses through a single source approved by all agencies 

across the county. 

The GEM program also seeks to improve the quality of training, in its case in management 

programs for the energy industry. The program grew out of energy industry leaders’ 

dissatisfaction with traditional master of business administration (MBA) programs; they felt that 

these programs did not provide students with the knowledge they needed to serve as effective 

managers and leaders within the industry. Thus, the TBL grant enabled staff to design a program 

tailored to the needs of the energy industry and its intended student population. For example, 

program courses include “Global Energy, Economics, and Geography” and “Leadership and 

Decision Making in the Global Energy Environment.” These courses teach some of the same 

fundamental skills taught in an MBA program but with a specific focus on the unique needs of 

the energy sector. The program uses technology that gives students practical skills in working 

collaboratively in an online environment, which employers feel is essential to success in a 

“global industry.” 

Planning and Designing TBL Programs 

A number of factors went into the shaping of programming and/or coursework as programs 

entered their planning and design phases. These factors included the perceived needs of target 

industries, the needs of target student populations, and the input offered by community partners, 

industry stakeholders, employers, and service constituents. Each grantee’s level of experience in 

the targeted field and/or in curriculum design also played a role in how long it took to design its 

TBL program, as did each grantee’s level of experience with ETA grants. 

Meeting Industry Needs 

The industries targeted by the TBL programs are those identified as “growing” or “high-growth,” 

such as IT, health care, and energy. Assessments of and/or knowledge about the workforce 

needs associated with these industries provided direction for Cohort I programs as they entered 

the design phases of their programming. 

For several programs, particularly the OWATC program, GEM, CATS, and Nurse Return to 

Work, local employers were instrumental in providing guidance on developing programs that 

would best meet industry needs. These employers provided support in a variety of ways. At 

OWATC, employers regularly provided input on curriculum via Employer Advisory Board 

meetings in order to ensure that course offerings were up to date and met local industry needs. 

III-3 
Industry leaders were also critical advisors to the GEM program, taking the lead role in 

designing program curriculum to ensure that it had an industry (as opposed to academic) focus. 

CATS included employers in its focus groups during the program planning phase in order to 

ensure that the program was comprehensive in meeting the needs of the field as well as those 

who use direct care services. 

The primary “need” of all of these industries is an appropriately trained, ready-to-serve, and 

sufficiently large workforce. Programs such as OWATC’s and GEM emphasize that workers 

need “process-related” thinking, and people skills that are generally not taught in textbooks. For 

GEM, these skills include the ability to effectively 

OWATC’s IT Job Board 

OWATC’s Job Board serves as a kind of 

internal internship opportunity, enabling 

IT students who have advanced webdesign skills to practice applying these 

skills while building the communications 

skills necessary for effective client 

relations. Through the job board, a 

faculty member interested in having a 

course or faculty web page developed by 

an IT student can advertise his or her 

needs to students in the program. 

Interested students apply to take on the 

project. 

Faculty who participate in this program 

agree to act as “clients” for the IT 

students. Students are coached on how 

to approach this project as one would in 

industry. The student begins by setting 

up an initial interview with the faculty 

member to talk about visions for the web 

page. The student then holds 

subsequent follow-up meetings 

throughout the course of design to solicit 

client feedback. OWATC’s Job Board 

project has received positive reviews 

from instructors as well as from advisory 

board members, who refer to it as a “winwin” situation. Through this project, 

OWATC and its faculty have access to 

free web development services while 

students are afforded the opportunity to 

develop and hone critical skills that are 

not taught in their textbooks. 

collaborate with others as well as to take 

advantage of technologies that enable employees 

to manage and lead others regardless of physical 

location. In response to this need, the program 

incorporated group projects into each course as 

well as a mandatory online participation 

requirement. According to the programming 

instructor in OWATC’s TBL program, the ability 

to help a client clearly articulate his or her desires 

and then translate that information into a product 

that meets the client’s needs is an essential skill 

that is not taught in most textbooks or in most IT 

training programs in general. Consequently, the 

programming instructor created a program called 

“job board” that offers web design students the 

opportunity to apply their technical skills in web 

development projects for faculty while they build 

skills in client relations and communications. 

(Please see accompanying text box, OWATC’s IT 

Job Board.) 

Program designers took these less tangible skills 

into consideration as they designed their courses. 

For the GEM program, this resulted in the 

incorporation of group projects into each course 

as well as a mandatory online participation 

requirement. At OWATC, the programming 

instructor created a program called “job board” that offers web design students the opportunity to 

III-4 
apply their technical skills in web development projects for faculty while they build skills in 

client relations and communications. (Please see accompanying text box, OWATC’s IT Job 

Board.) 

Meeting Student Needs 

While industry needs greatly influenced program design, the needs of student populations were 

equally important. All programs, for example, incorporate varying degrees of flexible pacing in 

order to accommodate the time constraints of their students, many of whom are currently 

employed and/or have family obligations. At the same time, program designers acknowledge 

that flexibility must be accompanied by a structure that keeps students engaged, motivated, and 

moving forward. To address this need, CareerLink requires students to attend a three-hour class 

in person every other week so that instructors and students can check in with each other. GEM 

enforces weekly due dates for class assignments and activities to ensure that students do not fall 

behind in their work. The OWATC program provides students with guidelines as to how long it 

should take to complete a course. An OWATC staff member monitors TBL student progress, 

setting up intervention meetings for students who fall behind. 

Program designers also appeared to be sensitive to students’ levels of technological proficiency 

when devising content delivery modes for their programs. There is no formal degree 

requirement for direct care workers in Wayne County and participants in the CATS program tend 

to have low levels of technological proficiency, thus the program’s design is simple and userfriendly. Students in the GEM program, in contrast, must have a baccalaureate degree in order to 

be eligible for the program. Students are thus expected to already possess a certain degree of 

technological proficiency. GEM coursework therefore employs more sophisticated technology 

in its curriculum delivery than some of the other programs in Cohort I. 

OWATC’s program represents a middle ground between the technological simplicity of the 

CATS program and the sophistication of the GEM program. OWATC’s program designers 

reasoned that since their students were going to be trained to enter the IT workforce, they could 

assume a certain degree of technological “aptitude” among the students. At the same time, they 

realized that much of OWATC’s student population is made up of students who have been “out 

of the education arena” for a long time. One instructor states that this lack of recent educational 

experience sometimes results in low confidence levels, adding that part of his job is therefore “to 

teach students how to learn again” and to assure them that they are capable of learning. He adds 

that a majority of his work with students at the beginning of the program involves a great deal of 

hand holding and confidence building. For this reason, the program’s IT courses are simple in 

design. The courses employ the use of a textbook that students must read, with assignments and 

III-5 
 

 

computer-based mini-quizzes at the end of every chapter to assess retention of knowledge. 

Students are able, in this format, to take practice quizzes as many times as necessary to feel they 

have mastered the material. 

Some Cohort I grantees were clear from the start about the student populations targeted for their 

TBL programs because they designed their programs to serve specific populations. GTC’s Nurse 

Return to Work program targeted nurses, for example, and A-DA’s CareerLink program targeted 

students with disabilities. One grantee—OWATC—had a clear picture of its intended 

population at the onset of the TBL project, but adjusted its expectations in the course of 

implementation. In conceptualizing the TBL program, OWATC staff assumed that their primary 

population (about 80 percent) would be incumbent workers whose employers want them to 

receive training to improve their skills. They assumed the other 20 percent would be 

unemployed or underemployed workers. OWATC staff believed local employers would be 

enthusiastic to participate and would construe the program as a good investment, since it allows 

employers to increase the skills of their workers at minimal cost. With the TBL program paying 

for 50 percent of tuition, books, and fees and Utah’s Custom Fit2

 program paying for 35 percent 

of the same, employers would only have to cover 15 percent of training costs for their 

employees. But as it turned out, the program’s student population “flipped,” as OWATC’s grant 

administrator put it, reflecting a reversal of expectations. Currently, its primary population 

comprises unemployed and under-employed workers and a significantly smaller portion is made 

up of incumbent workers. According to the grant administrator and program director, this shift is 

the result of the unexpected impacts of the economic downturn. This was confirmed by an 

employer partner, who said that employers are “tightening their belts” and—no matter how 

sound the investment—they are not paying for anything that is not seen as absolutely necessary, 

including training. 

Input from Program Partners 

All Cohort I programs were designed through collaborations with multiple partners. Most 

grantees formed advisory committees, made up of different stakeholders from their respective 

industries and regions. These stakeholders generally included public workforce system partners, 

local employers, and organizations working with the programs’ target populations. They 

provided insights into workforce needs of specific industries, regional economic concerns, and 

the needs of target student populations. 

Custom Fit funds are education monies set aside by the Utah state legislature for training that increases the skill 

sets of Utah employees. 

III-6 

2 
 

 

The degree of partner involvement in curriculum development varied across programs. With no 

prior TBL experience, A-DA solicited help from the San Diego Futures Foundation (SDFF), 3 an 

organization that focuses on helping nonprofit organizations with their IT needs, to develop an 

IT certification program that served the needs of its clients. This in turn led to a partnership 

with SkillSoft, an organization well-versed in designing IT curricula. SDFF and SkillSoft 

served as key advisors for A-DA’s CareerLink program, providing guidance on curriculum 

design and program implementation. SkillSoft ultimately provided the curriculum for the 

program, as it had already developed IT certification curriculum packages that it shared with 

CareerLink. 

Grantees such as OWATC and the GEM program at UCD relied heavily on input from employer 

partners for the curriculum design of their TBL programs. For OWATC, soliciting employer 

input regarding curriculum is standard practice, since the institution views local employers as its 

“clients” and already had employer advisory boards in place. These advisory boards regularly 

review and offer advice on curriculum in order to ensure that course content is both relevant and 

up-to-date. UCD’s reliance on employer/industry input for the design of GEM emerged out of 

dissatisfaction with the perceived inadequacies of MBA programs. In fact, program design came 

almost entirely from the energy industry. Employer partners heavily influenced the choice of 

course topics and helped define the skills that needed to be mastered through the course of the 

program. 

One grantee—TGC—made an unusually thorough effort to solicit appropriate input for 

program design. The designers of its CATS program wanted to ensure that their efforts were 

comprehensive in scope and that their curriculum would address not only the needs of direct 

care workers but also the needs of the people whom they serve. Thus, they held focus groups 

with families who receive care as well as other organizations that serve these families. These 

groups offered valuable insights into gaps in services that should be addressed in a training 

curriculum. (Please see the text box: An Holistic Approach to Program Design for a more 

detailed account of the CATS program design process and the program goals articulated as a 

result of this process.) 

The San Diego Futures Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to “change lives in San Diego 

County by making information technology available to underserved individuals, organizations and 

disadvantaged small businesses through training, education, technical services and equipment.” 

http://www.sdfutures.org/about/mission.htm. 

III-7 

3 
CATS: An Holistic Approach to Program Design 

The process of developing the CATS curriculum was a collaborative 

endeavor, involving multiple stakeholders in the mental health field and 

incorporating input from both providers and recipients of care. 

The Virtual Center of Excellence (VCE, a program of TGC) began the 

process by forming a Direct Care Curriculum Advisory Committee that 

met on a regular basis. This committee was made up of training 

directors from the county’s community mental health agencies, 

directors of home care providers, and direct care workers with 

experience in the arena of mental health, developmental disabilities, 

and gerontology. Committee members were responsible for prioritizing 

and defining curriculum content and the resources to be included on 

VCE’s website. VCE also went beyond its advisory group in soliciting 

input, conducting focus groups of county stakeholders that included the 

people who receive care as well as representatives from other 

organizations that work with these populations. These focus groups 

enabled VCE to identify needs, gaps, and best practices to include in 

CATS programming. 

This collaborative process resulted in the identification of four major 

goals for the CATS curriculum: 

1. Streamlining direct care worker training to eliminate redundancy of 

efforts and enable agencies to share resources 

2. Ensuring that the website is accessible, customer-friendly, and easy 

to use in order to increase training opportunities for a workforce 

population that has little, if any, experience working with computers 

3. Incorporating real-life examples and personal stories into the 

curriculum in order to bring life, meaning, and inspiration to direct care 

trainings 

4. Creating an online transcript system for employer access 

Overall, the programs 

were thoughtful in 

their efforts to solicit 

input and advice from 

program partners, key 

stakeholders in target 

industries, and 

service populations. 

This input helped 

program staff ensure 

that their designs 

would effectively 

meet the needs of 

their participants and 

target industries. The 

time it took to 

translate this input 

into design varied 

across programs, 

depending on a 

number of factors. 

This is discussed in 

more detail in the 

next section. 

Duration of the Design Process 

The duration of the design stage varied across programs depending on a number of factors. One 

was the extent of partners’ participation. At one end of the spectrum is the GEM program, which 

was designed primarily by industry leaders and GEM staff and did not require extensive 

coordination across different organizations. This was also true of the OWATC program, which 

was designed primarily by OWATC staff, with some input from the IT program’s Employer 

Advisory Board (which already existed prior to the grant.) At the other end of the spectrum, the 

design of the CATS program required coordination across training staff from three different 

III-8 
mental health agencies, directors of home care providers, direct care workers, and care 

recipients. 

Duration was also affected by whether the grant was used to start a new program or to update an 

existing one. For example, GTC’s Nurse Return to Work program had been up and running for 

several years before the TBL grant, and staff were clear from the start about its goals. This 

meant that GTC did not need to spend time designing a course from scratch and could more 

quickly implement the grant to improve course content and instructional delivery. A-DA, on the 

other hand, was starting a brand new program (CareerLink) in an unfamiliar arena and therefore 

required more assistance (and more time) to develop the course design. 

Familiarity with ETA grants also played a role in the duration. For example, while OWATC’s 

program was not brand new, the grant administrator stated that OWATC had not previously 

applied for an ETA grant. As a result, the program had to devote more time and resources to 

make sure that its staff understood and correctly followed ETA policies and procedures during 

the design process. The Director of Grants at NOVA, on the other hand, had helped facilitate 

several ETA grants prior to the TBL initiative and was therefore very knowledgeable about ETA 

expectations, policies, and procedures. She felt comfortable telling staff to begin setting up the 

design process so that if the GIS program was awarded the grant, staff could immediately launch 

into the process and not be delayed by procedural issues. 

Summary 

The planning and design process varied for each program in Cohort I, depending on program 

goals and the capacity of each grantee organization to carry out those goals. The main goals for 

the programs in Cohort I are to use TBL methods to increase access to education and training 

and to improve the quality of educational content and delivery. These programs have enabled 

students to learn remotely and on their own time. Efforts to improve educational quality include 

enhancements to the educational materials, hardware and other resources, streamlining training 

opportunities, and tailoring programs to meet specific industry needs. 

The planning and design process for all programs was primarily guided by student needs and the 

needs of target industries. The primary need for all industries associated with Cohort I programs 

is an appropriately trained and skilled workforce of adequate size. As they worked to ensure that 

their programs met this primary need, design staff from all programs also had to consider a 

multitude of factors to ensure that their program designs appropriately addressed the needs of 

their student populations. These factors include flexible but managed pacing of courses as well 

as appropriate matching of course content and delivery methods to the educational levels and 

technological proficiencies of students. 

III-9 
All programs engaged in some level of collaboration during the design process. Some programs 

relied heavily on program partners to help them define needs and find appropriate ways to 

address them through effective course design. GEM and OWATC’s program, for example, 

relied on their employer partners to either define or ensure relevance of course content. A-DA 

relied on another technology-focused non-profit and a firm that was well-versed in IT curriculum 

design to help shape its program, since A-DA had no experience in either the IT industry or 

curriculum development. In an effort to engage in an holistic approach to design, the CATS 

program not only used input provided by advisory groups made up of different levels of service 

providers in the mental health industry, but also held focus groups with people who receive care 

from these organizations. 

The duration of the design process varied across programs, depending on a number of factors. 

For example, when there was a need for coordination across partners, the design phase was more 

complex and required more time. Whether grantees were developing new programs or updating 

existing ones also had an impact on how long the design process took, since designing programs 

from scratch, as A-DA did, requires considerably more time and effort than updating existing 

programs, as was the case with the OWATC program, Nurse Return to Work, and GCPI. 

Finally, some grantees were more familiar with ETA policies and procedures than others and that 

also affected the duration of the design process. 

III-10 
 

 

 

IV. TRAINING METHODS AND CONTENT 

This chapter focuses on the course content of Cohort I TBL programs and the instructional 

methods used to deliver that content. The chapter first categorizes each program according to 

methods used and then provides detailed descriptions of those methods, the associated 

technologies, and the assessment of student achievement. The chapter then briefly discusses the 

reasons why nearly all Cohort I programs opted to use blended learning and asynchronous 

delivery.1 

Models of Online Learning 

As discussed in the first chapter of this report, TBL includes both online learning—learning that 

occurs via the Internet and necessarily involves computers—and computer-based learning, 

which involves learning through computer technologies that don’t depend on connection to the 

Internet, usually in a computer lab. All of the six Cohort I programs use online learning, with all 

but the OWATC program using it as the primary means of developing and delivering training 

content. 

To provide a better understanding of the similarities and differences among the instructional 

methods used by the six Cohort I TBL programs, it is useful to categorize them in terms of a 

theoretical framework. One such framework is David Huffaker’s (2003)2

, which offers three 

models of online learning. These models—presentation, interactive, and collaborative— 

categorize programs primarily according to their online delivery approaches. In the presentation 

model, content is presented to students in a one-way direction, much like it is in a classroom 

lecture. In the interactive model, content is presented as well, but students are required to 

1	 Asynchronous delivery refers to training content that is available to students at any time, rather than only at the 

time that it is first delivered. This term is further discussed later in the chapter. 

2	 “The e-Learning Design Challenge: Technology, models and design principles.” 

http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/10F38AF1-3F8F-44F7-A49D2FFC59FB7320/0/HuffakerELearningDesignChallenges.pdf 

IV-1 
 

 

 

interact directly with the material, making choices, responding contextually, and tracking their 

progress. The collaboration model builds on both of the other models, adding in the social 

component of learning and encouraging the formation of collaborative online communities. This 

section of the chapter categorizes each Cohort I program according to this framework, beginning 

with the three programs that fit the interactive model and concluding with the three that fall 

under the collaborative model.3 

Interactive Programs 

In the interactive model of online learning, users interact directly with course material. The level 

of interaction may vary and can be as simple as navigating online content or as complex as using 

technology to run experiments. Online learning that falls under the interactive model does not 

require online collaboration or interaction with other students; instead, its interactivity exists 

primarily to encourage students to focus on achieving individual goals. Three Cohort I 

programs—CATS, the TBL program at OWATC, and CareerLink—fall into this category. 

These programs are similar in that they have students use computers or online technology to 

complete assignments and/or take tests. Where they differ is in their use of technology to deliver 

instruction: whether this technology is accessed primarily via the Internet or in a computer lab, 

the level of complexity of the technologies used, and how much structure is built into courses to 

help students progress within a reasonable time frame. Each program’s specific structure and 

methodology is described below, beginning with CATS, which uses the simplest approach. 

CATS—Simple Technology; Minimal Structure; Entirely Online 

Direct care workers in the CATS program can access video training courses online via the VCE 

Web site.4,5 The courses are designed to be extremely user-friendly, given the low technological 

proficiency levels of most direct care workers. The program also has very little structure— 

student progress is not monitored and there are no restrictions on the time it takes to complete 

courses. In the CATS program, any Detroit-Wayne County direct care worker interested in 

taking courses can do so at his or her own pace. 

3	 The presentation model is not applicable to any program in Cohort I. 

4	 As discussed in previous chapters, VCE (Virtual Center for Excellence) is a program of the grantee, The 

Guidance Center. VCE hosts the CATS program. 

5	 Technically, students have the option of participating in a synchronous activity by attending a live training 

session when it is being filmed. Students can also view a live training session at one of four designated centers 

in Wayne County that broadcast the session via video conferencing. These are one-time opportunities, however, 

whose primary focus is to provide training material for later use online. 

IV-2 
A typical course includes a video of an instructor explaining the course content, followed by a 

few slides of text summarizing video content. The student is then asked to complete a multiplechoice quiz, testing his or her retention of the content material. The student must answer every 

question correctly to move on. He or she is allowed to continue taking the quiz until all 

questions are answered correctly. When students successfully complete their courses, their 

transcripts are updated and made available online, where employers have easy access to them. 

The time it typically takes to complete training depends on the goals of each participant, and 

whether he or she is an entry-level worker or an experienced worker. Current direct care 

workers who are required to periodically update certain aspects of their training need only take 

specific courses to fill the requirements set forth by the Detroit-Wayne County Community 

Mental Health Agency (DWCCMA). 

There are currently four CATS courses available online, though the program is continuing to 

develop, film, and add training modules. These courses include Medicaid Fair Hearings; Local 

Appeals and Grievances; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; and Recipient 

Rights Annual I. Courses range from a half an hour to three hours in length. By December 

2009, CATS users will also have access to the College of Direct Support’s online offerings, 

including those leading to certification as a Direct Support Provider. 

CareerLink—Complex Technologies; Primarily Online 

All of CareerLink’s IT certification programs are offered online. The program offers IT 

certification in one or more of the following areas: 

 IT Technician; 

 Network Technician; 

 Desktop Support Technician; 

 Server Technician; 

 Java Programmer; and 

 Microsoft Office Specialist. 

In CareerLink’s courses, instruction is delivered online through a Java-based, interactive video 

that has audio features that enables students to hear the same information that is presented in text 

on the screen. Students watch the videos and then periodically complete activities that test their 

knowledge. For example, as students progress through each course, they are given opportunities 

to take “mini tests.” Students are able to go back after completing each test to see which 

questions they missed and to repeat these mini-tests as many times as necessary until they feel 

comfortable with the subject matter. When they are ready, students take a final, graded test for 

IV-3 
 

 

 

each course, which they are expected to pass with 80 percent proficiency. Following completion 

of each course, students are expected to take the appropriate industry certification exam(s). 

Due to concerns about “social loafing,”6 while students are able to take courses at their own 

paces, program staff place limits on how long students may take to complete a course. In 

addition, they provide students with guidance on expected progress rates to help students manage 

their workloads. In general, students are expected to complete one module each week, and 

courses generally take ten to twelve weeks to complete. 

CareerLink program designers also incorporated an in-person component to the program as part 

of their effort to keep students engaged and motivated. Students are required to attend a threehour class, in person, once every other week. These in-person classes serve as “check in” points 

for students and instructors, enabling the instructor to provide students with support, 

supplemental training materials, and instruction tailored to meet the specific needs of each 

student. Classroom sessions also provide time and space for hands-on training, which 

respondents said is critical for students whose intended careers require direct work with 

computer hardware. 

CareerLink’s LMS has a message board and a chat function; however, these are not 

regularly used. It also has a “Mentor Tool,” which is supposed to provide students with 

unlimited access to SkillSoft’s academic mentors, who can assist with questions related 

to training or with technical issues related to the LMS. The mentoring tool is also 

supposed to provide students with a daily mentoring email that includes test questions 

and information on the courses they are taking. However, use of this tool varies. While 

both the instructor and the instructional designer heralded the Mentor Tool, student 

respondents stated that they had never used the function. One of these students reported 

having made several failed attempts to use the feature. The Mentor Tool was also nonfunctioning during the site visitor’s virtual tour of the LMS. 

The OWATC Program—Complex Technologies; Primarily in an On-site Computer 

Lab 

As with CareerLink, OWATC offers IT credential (certification) courses7 to its students, using 

roughly similar technology. Similar to CareerLink students, students in the OWATC program 

6	 “Social loafing” occurs when learners reduce their efforts in TBL programs. Social loafing often occurs as a 

result of frustration with technology or because of a program’s lesser focus on personal interactions. 

7	 Currently, OWATC’s program covers the following subject areas: A+ Certification, Network+, Linux+, 

Security+, Administering Windows Server, Internet Site Design, Internet Technology, and Java Programming. 

IV-4 
 

 

 

complete assignments and take tests via the program’s LMS. The OWATC program’s courses 

are also self-paced, with guidelines for how long each course should take.8

 OWATC students are 

required to move through the program at a minimum 67 percent progress rate,9

 which is the same 

progress rate designated for Pell Grant recipients. Students who fall below that rate receive 

counseling and intervention. Those who fail to improve after two interventions exit the program. 

While the CareerLink program is delivered primarily online, OWATC’s program is offered 

primarily via computer-based learning in the program’s computer lab, with readily available inperson assistance from an instructor. OWATC has chosen this method for delivering training 

content because the program wants instructors to be physically available for students as course 

materials become more difficult, so that instructors can identify and assist with learning 

challenges more readily. One instructor added that he likes to be present for students as they 

move further along in their programs so that he can help “mold them” and prepare them for 

expectations in industry. 

The program does, however, offer four courses online and is using the TBL grant to put four 

more online by July 2010. Students will continue to have the option to go into the lab to take 

those courses. The current online courses—Internet Technology, Introduction to Information 

Technology, A+ Certification I, and Introduction to Programming—are fairly simple in nature, 

mimicking the lab-based, self-paced courses in that a student is expected to read a textbook, 

complete course assignments, and take quizzes to test his or her knowledge. The only difference 

is that the quizzes and assignments are available online so that students can complete them 

outside of the lab setting. 

There is also very little online communication in the OWATC program’s online classes. While 

the program’s LMS has chat and discussion board functions, they are rarely used. Students 

sometimes communicate with instructors via email but student and instructor respondents report 

that students’ preferred method of interaction is face-to-face. This preference is related to the 

preference of many OWATC program students to do their work in the OWATC computer lab, 

even if online options are available. Some students may choose to work in the lab because they 

do not have the required technology in their homes, or because certain scholarships require in8	 At the beginning of each course, a student is given an estimate of the number of hours it should take him or her 

to complete the course. Similarly, each assignment also has estimates of how long it should take to complete. 

These are provided to students via the LMS. 

9	 Calculated as a student’s progress relative to expected time frames as noted in prior footnote. 

IV-5 
 

 

person attendance,10 but instructors also believe (and students affirm) that students simply prefer 

to come in to the lab because they feel more comfortable being in the presence of an instructor in 

case they need help with their assignments. 

OWATC is working on improving the interaction between students and instructors in its online 

courses. One of the instructors has been testing out Wimba Classroom11 to see if it will allow 

him to better help online programming students who are struggling with their assignments. 

Ideally, Wimba should allow him to see what a student is working on while he communicates 

with that student in real time, either through a “chat” function, an audio stream, or video 

interaction. 

Collaborative Programs 

The collaborative model of e-learning encourages the social aspect of learning. Programs that 

follow this model of learning leverage online tools as an effective means of having students 

share ideas, engage in topical discussions, and/or work collaboratively on class projects. 

Although they do not take the collaborative model to its fullest possible expression, Nurse 

Return to Work, GEM, and GCPI can be most accurately described as following the 

collaborative model, as these programs not only require students to interact with course 

materials, but also include participation requirements for students to engage in discussions with 

one another and/or work together on group projects. Because they require online interaction 

and/or group project participation, all programs that fall under the collaborative model have a 

greater degree of structure than those that fall under the interactive model. The programs differ 

in the ways in which they use interaction and collaboration to achieve specific goals. 

Nurse Return to Work— In-Person and Online Interaction Focused on Practical 

Skills 

GTC’s Nurse Return to Work program entails three months of online study, in-person skills labs, 

an internship, and assistance with the licensing process. There are a total of fifteen online 

lessons in this program, varying considerably in length, and two four-day in-person skills labs 

that occur close to the end of the first and second months of instruction. The entire training 

program lasts approximately four to six months. The program begins with a mandatory, four10	 For example, Ogden Weber Community Action Partnership requires 100 percent physical attendance as a 

stipulation of their funding. 

11	 Wimba Classroom is a software program that provides an online meeting room that enables more effective 

interaction between students and instructors. 

IV-6 
 

hour, in-person orientation. The instructor also makes herself available for in-person meetings 

with students during the first two weeks of classes, in case they have further questions. 

Once the orientation is complete, students begin the online portion of the program. Online 

course materials include audio and written lectures as well as videos. Videos are skills-based 

and display step-by-step instructions for various procedures. The instructor also conducts 

occasional online, synchronous “live classroom”12 meetings on complicated subject matters such 

as “medication math” that students can also review once these sessions have been recorded and 

made available online. Online material is supplemented by additional textbook readings that 

focus on specific information as well as scenarios and case studies. Students complete the 

scenarios and check their answers by logging on to the textbook website. Students are also given 

access to additional web-based material for further practice or supplementary readings. Once a 

student feels ready, he or she can attempt a course exam. Students are offered only two chances 

to take their tests; should a student choose to retake an exam he or she is assigned the higher of 

the two scores. Exams are timed and questions for each exam are chosen at random from a test 

question bank. Once an exam is opened, it must be completed and submitted for grading. 

Students must score at least 75 percent on each exam. 

About a month into the program, students participate in the first in-person skills lab, with the 

second one occurring about a month later. Before attending these labs, students must complete 

certain online lessons. During the labs, simulations and skills demonstrations are conducted in 

classroom settings; these help to foster collaboration among students. Students are given specific 

case studies and they are then required to determine the diagnosis, the plan of treatment, and the 

nursing intervention. Through the skills labs, students are afforded opportunities to interact with 

one another in person and to collaborate on activities. 

Collaboration, however, is not limited to the in-person component of the Nurse Return to Work 

program. The program requires online participation as well. Students make use of discussion 

boards and chat functions to respond to topics posted by the instructor or to share knowledge 

with one another. Students also work together in “virtual groups” to complete group 

assignments. The instructor monitors online participation and attendance and contacts students 

who are not interacting with others or participating in the group project. The program also 

encourages the formation of informal virtual study groups among students. Instructors view all 

of this interaction as key to successful learning and mastery in a TBL environment. 

12 Live Classroom is virtual classroom software that combines interactive technologies such as voice, application 

sharing, polling and whiteboarding. 

IV-7 
GEM – Online Interaction and Quarterly In-Person Interaction to Facilitate 

Learning and Build Peer Networks 

Students in the GEM program begin each quarter with an intensive, in-person, four-day 

convening wherein they stay at a hotel in Denver and attend in-person lectures, participate in 

social networking sessions, and 

engage in group work. This is a 

critical aspect of the program, 

because it gives students and 

professors a chance to get to 

know one another outside of the 

online environment. It also 

affords students the opportunity 

to network with one another, 

which instructors encourage 

because the ability to effectively 

network is seen as an important 

skill for future energy managers. 

After that first, intensive inperson session, all course 

activities and interactions for the 

rest of the quarter are done 

virtually, using either GEM’s 

LMS or Adobe Connect. 

GEM’s online courses are 

designed to mirror graduate 

school classes. Thus, a typical 

week begins with faculty posting 

60 minutes of pre-recorded 

lectures onto the LMS using 

Adobe Connect. These lectures 

incorporate audio and video 

Responding to a Need for Structure 

Currently, GEM courses are carefully structured to help 

students stay engaged and on track, particularly through 

the use of weekly assignments and online participation 

requirements. This was not always the case, however. 

The program’s current design was developed in response 

to feedback from students who specifically requested that 

courses be more structured so that they could better 

manage course requirements and expectations within their 

busy schedules. 

As discussed in Chapter III, the design process relied 

heavily on input from industry advisors, as opposed to 

faculty who may have been better-versed in effective 

online pedagogical approaches. Thus, initial course 

descriptions were not well developed and mainly listed 

the topic and subject areas to be covered within a 

specific course. As a result, GEM classes had a very 

“loose” structure, with improvised assignments and due 

dates and no online participation requirements. GEM 

students found it difficult to work within such a loose 

structure, given the many demands on their time by 

their employers, families, and other responsibilities. 

In response to this concern, GEM’s associate director of 

programs worked with the program’s advisory committee 

to create a standard syllabus for all GEM courses. This 

syllabus contains a list of minimum requirements, including 

the type and number of assignments that must be included 

in each course, expected levels of discussion board 

activity, and guidelines on assignment due dates. 

Students noticed the changes, commenting that the 

courses were greatly improved as a result. 

functions and include PowerPoint presentations. Students are expected to watch these lectures, 

read supplemental materials from textbooks and/or journals, respond to faculty questions posted 

on the discussion board, and work on related assignments. 

IV-8 
 

 

 

 

Typical course assignments may include three individual papers, one oral submission delivered 

through Adobe Connect, one large group assignment, and one final exam.13 

Online interactivity among students is high in the GEM program. Instructors believe that the 

initial four-day intensive session is key to stimulating the interactivity. They further help to 

foster this interaction through facilitated discussions via the discussion board and the assignment 

of an online group project. Students add that in addition to their discussion board activity, they 

email each other when they have questions or need help. Students and instructors note that 

interaction between students is highest when students are nearing assignment deadlines. 

In addition to their regular course materials, students are provided with a wide range of 

supplemental learning materials via links through the LMS. These materials include relevant 

energy sector events and conferences, resources for energy science and management (e.g., 

research papers, energy news, etc.), domestic and international government resources, various 

background videos about energy and the energy sector, and information about energy sector 

organizations. The LMS has also been modified to allow news feeds and selected energy news 

articles from key newspapers and journals. 

GCPI—Online interaction and a Learning Community 

All courses in GCPI’s GIS Career Studies Certificate program are offered via traditional, inperson classes, which students can take in the computer lab at NOVA’s Annandale campus. All 

but two of these courses are also offered online, although due to the cost of the software required 

to participate in these programs and the amount of computer memory needed to run them, many 

online students also make use of the program’s computer lab.14 

All online course activities are asynchronous in nature; however, as with GEM’s course 

structure, pace is managed through weekly assignments and online participation requirements. 

Similar to the GEM program, GCPI students are expected each week to watch an online lecture, 

complete weekly reading assignments, respond to weekly discussion questions posted online, 

and complete a course assignment. 

The tools used for GCPI’s online courses include calendars to map out course activities over the 

semester and discussion boards, which are used heavily and form the basis of participation. 

13 This particular example is taken from the “21st Century Global Energy Issues and Realities” course. 

14 However, the GCPI program was about to install desktop virtualization on a computer server at NOVA. This 

will allow students to access GIS software from this server, rather than from their own hard drives, which should 

mitigate these problems. 

IV-9 
 

 

 

Students also rely on email to interact with each other and to ask for help. Online lectures utilize 

audio and video functions and include PowerPoint presentations as well as on-screen navigation 

software for demonstration purposes. 

Course participants have also come to rely heavily on the use of Ning as a platform for learning 

and social interaction. Ning is a social networking platform that GCPI’s director used to create a 

specific website for the program.15 Although this website was initially intended for online 

students, it proved to be a valuable tool for all of GCPI’s students as well as the director (who is 

also one of the program’s primary instructors), and its use has therefore expanded to include 

traditional in-person as well as online students. The director reported that Ning is an easier tool 

to use than the LMS, particularly if he wants to add content for informational and assignment 

purposes. He often uses the Ning site to post videos for students to watch and discuss. Students 

use Ning to “chat,” share assignment products, post questions, and even post job listings. Ning 

has prompted students to engage in discussions that move far beyond the scope of the questions 

posted by their professors. In this way, students have been able to develop a GIS community 

that includes both online and in-person students. 

Blended Learning 

While the programs in Cohort I differ in terms of the models ascribed to each program, all but 

one of the programs share an important trait: they employ a blended approach to learning.16 

Blended learning refers to a training approach that combines a mix of online and in-person 

training delivery for improved engagement and better retention. Some research has shown that 

blended learning results in better learning outcomes than non-blended approaches.17 As a result 

of this research, blended learning has recently become the dominant paradigm among training 

designers and experts and is the method of choice for all programs in Cohort I, with the 

exception of the CATS program. The following section first describes blending among Cohort I 

programs and then discusses the rationales behind the programs’ choice of blended learning 

approaches and how these approaches serve the needs of the programs’ students. 

15 http://geospecial.ning.com/
 

16 Blended course are also sometimes referred to as “hybrid” courses. 

17 See, for instance, Thompson, C . 2002. Thompson Job Impact Study: The Next Generation of Corporate 

Learning. 

IV-10 
 

 

 

Use of Blended Learning among Cohort I Programs 

Although five of the six Cohort I programs use a blended approach to learning, each offers inperson activities or in-person training delivery to a greater or lesser degree and in different ways. 

The Cohort I program that currently has the greatest amount of in-person training delivery is the 

OWATC program. At OWATC, except for four courses (which are also offered in-person), all 

training is delivered via computer-based instruction in OWATC’s computer lab, with instructors 

on hand to provide immediate, one-on-one assistance. Interestingly, though, OWATC’s online 

courses have no in-person requirements; but to prepare for most industry certification exams or 

the Information Technology certificate, students currently must complete additional courses inperson.18 

The Nurse Return to Work program has arguably the next highest proportion of its program 

delivered in person; it has an in-person orientation, two four-day in-person skills labs, at least 

one proctored in-person test (for the lesson on medication math), and a required 84-hour 

internship onsite at an employer. These in-person activities occur approximately monthly 

throughout the program. 

The CareerLink program also includes a significant number of in-person activities, which occur 

even more regularly throughout the program. For example, while participating in online courses, 

students are required to attend bi-weekly, three-hour, in-person sessions with the program’s 

instructor to review and practice what they are learning online. Following completion of these 

courses, students are also required to come in for regular in-person sessions during the program’s 

test preparation and job search components. After completing the test preparation component, 

students are also required to complete a 16-week internship onsite with an outside employer. 

Of the five Cohort I programs that employ blended learning, GEM—with all courses available 

online and no internship requirement—has perhaps the least amount of in-person activities. 

However, GEM students are required to spend four full days attending an in-person orientation 

and training delivery session at the beginning of each quarter. Since the program takes many 

quarters to complete, GEM’s in-person activities occur evenly throughout the program. 

In contrast to the purposeful blending approaches used by the OWATC program, Nurse Return 

to Work, CareerLink, and GEM, GCPI’s blending is unintentional, primarily because two of 

courses that are required for the GIS certificate are still in the process of being made available 

18 However, the program plans to put four other courses online by July 2010. These courses include: A+ 

Certification II, Internet Site Designer I and II, and Java II. Each of these courses will also continue to be 

available in-person. 

IV-11 
 

 

 

 

online. Consequently, students must complete these two courses through traditional, in-person 

sessions. Once these two traditional courses are made available online, however, GCPI, along 

with CATS, will be the only Cohort I programs with no required in-person components 

(although GCPI students will still be required to complete an internship either on campus at 

NOVA or in an employer’s office).19 

However, due to the challenges GCPI students often face in purchasing and running GIS 

software on their home computers, many end up completing much of their coursework in person 

at the program’s computer lab, resulting in a de facto in-person activity for these students.20 

Similarly, a number of OWATC’s online students also choose to complete their assignments 

onsite in the program’s computer lab, partly to use faster or better-equipped computers, but also 

partly to have in-person access to instructors. 

Rationales for Using Blended Learning 

Respondents at the five Cohort I programs that use blended learning approaches provided a 

number of rationales for doing so. This section describes each of those rationales, beginning 

with the reasoning that certain skills necessitate in-person activities or training delivery. 

Acquisition of Practical Skills Requires Physical Presence 

Some programs in Cohort I require a blended approach to training delivery because teaching 

students practical skills warrants it. For example, while the Nurse Return to Work program 

enables students to conduct 85 percent of their training at home, nurses need some practical skills 

training that requires a physical presence. This training is fulfilled via the skills labs. Similarly, 

respondents from both CareerLink and OWATC’s program believe that at least some IT-related 

skills are most efficiently taught through a hands-on approach because of the nature of the 

subject matter. Instructors and students agree that tasks such as building computer networks or 

building a computer from scratch are difficult to grasp through textbook and/or online study 

alone. One networking student in OWATC’s program stated that she regularly came into the lab 

because she enjoys working on the “job bench” projects. She stated that it was difficult to 

understand how to tackle a technical problem by reading about it in a textbook, adding that “it’s 

much more helpful to see it.” 

19 Again, as discussed above, OWATC students, who are pursuing certain industry certifications, such as A+ 

Essentials and Internet Webmaster Foundations, can also prepare for those certifications and complete the TBL 

program without any in-person requirements. However, for the college’s Information Technology Certificate or 

many other industry certifications, completion of one or more in-person courses is required. 

20 As noted above, however, this may also change once the program installs desktop virtualization. 

IV-12 
Concerns about “Quality” 

Staff in both the GEM program and at OWATC expressed concern about general perceptions 

that online courses are not equal in quality to traditional courses. During GEM’s design phase, 

program staff mentioned that employer partners were concerned about GEM’s online component 

because of negative perceptions about other online programs. It was in part to answer these 

concerns that an in-person component was added to the program. Staff felt that incorporating an 

intensive, in-person requirement at the beginning of each quarter—in addition to sound program 

design—would assure employers that quality and rigor would not be not sacrificed as a result of 

online learning and instruction. In addition, accreditation requirements stipulated that some 

portion of the program must include an in-person requirement. 

Staff at OWATC also mentioned concerns that shifting too far into an online mode would 

compromise quality. According to the program director, these concerns about quality originate 

from their employer partners and advisors, many of whom perceive in-person trainings to be 

more effective and of higher quality than online trainings. In addition, staff at OWATC believe 

that students and employers place high value on the institution’s hands-on approach to learning 

and thus feel it is important to stay true to that aspect of the institution’s identity while still 

finding ways to employ technology to facilitate easier access to learning. 

While the decision to continue to incorporate in-person training in OWATC’s approach to 

instruction was in some part guided by the desire to fit the needs and demands of local 

employers, program staff also believe that it is simply sound pedagogy. OWATC’s 

programming instructor states that in-person instruction is often critical to success, particularly 

as the courses become more difficult. According to this instructor, in-person instruction allows 

teachers to teach through in-depth discussion, demonstration, and simulations of “real life” 

scenarios. 

Networking/Relationship Building 

While the building of peer networks is a by-product of many of the programs in Cohort I, the 

GEM program specifically highlights social networking and relationship building as both a 

program goal and a rationale behind its blended approach. GEM staff believe the intensive, inperson session at the beginning of each quarter is a key component of the program’s success 

because it helps develop important relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Moreover, 

according to employer partners, high-level managers of energy companies need to be able to 

work collaboratively in groups, and an intensive in-person session is a good way for students to 

learn the skills involved. Additionally, faculty expressed their appreciation for the in-person 

component, as it allowed them to put faces to names. Thus, when students seek help or 

assistance, faculty feel they have a better relationship with and understanding of that person (and 

IV-13 
his or her needs) than they would have if no face-to-face interaction had occurred. Finally, 

participants repeatedly spoke about the face-to-face interaction being a good basis for positive 

peer pressure and a way to foster productive competition among participants. 

While peer relationship building was not a stated program goal, staff and students in the Nurse 

Return to Work program feel 

that it is a critical benefit that Finding the “Right Blend” 

arises from the program’s The OWATC program has placed only a few of its courses blended learning model. In- online because staff believe that effective IT training 

requires a hands-on approach. CareerLink, by contrast, put person interactions in skills 

all of its IT certification programs online, though program labs, and through the group staff also agree that hands-on learning is helpful, particularly 

in certain IT arenas. The difference, for these two “drug card” project in

programs, lies in perceptions of the degree of in-person particular, were touted as contact necessary to serve the goals of the program and the important catalysts in needs of its student population. CareerLink students who 

need hands-on training receive it when they attend their in- promoting collegiality and vital 

person class every other week. OWATC students have interaction between students, easy access to hands-on training whenever they go to the which then carried over into computer lab to work on their assignments. 

other aspects of course Feedback from CareerLink students indicates, however, that learning. For example, study the program’s particular “blend” may not completely satisfy 

student needs. Student respondents commented that they groups were formed as a result 

“would like more hands-on training” during class time. One of this exercise. Students student stated that he only started grasping course content referred to these study groups and becoming successful in online tests once he started 

working one-on-one with the instructor. However, he did not as “life savers,” particularly

start engaging in one-on-one instruction until late into his since many of these students training program. had not studied in a formal 

On the other hand, while OWATC’s program provides ample classroom setting in decades. amounts of hands-on training, this individualized attention 

places a heavy burden on instructors’ time. This burden Maintaining a resulted in an enrollment cap for the program. Productive Pace 

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges for students working in an online setting is maintaining a 

productive pace that enables them to complete their courses within a reasonable time frame. 

Staff at CareerLink, the OWATC program, and GEM indicate that the ability to maintain a 

productive pace is critical and that it is tied to a student’s sense of motivation and/or drive as 

well as his or her capacity for self-discipline. It is unrealistic to expect all students to have the 

motivation and self-discipline necessary for success. Required in-person participation is one 

way that these programs help students stay engaged (and therefore motivated). This required 

participation also provides staff the opportunity to check in with students to ensure that they are 

progressing at an appropriate rate. 

IV-14 
 

Issues of productive pacing are not limited to concerns about social loafing and diminishing 

engagement in a TBL environment. They also include appropriate matching of pace to student 

ability. CareerLink’s instructor, for example, uses the in-person class time to tailor instruction to 

the differing needs and abilities of each student in the course. Similarly, the OWATC program’s 

emphasis on in-person instruction enables instructors to work individually with students who 

have different levels of experience and “aptitude” with technology and who therefore need to 

pace their work differently. One networking student stated that she enjoyed the flexibility of 

OWATC’s program pacing because she had “been messing around with computers for a long 

time” and was fairly advanced in her knowledge. She was therefore able to move rapidly 

through her course, completing it well ahead of schedule and leaving her more time to engage in 

hands-on “tinkering” work at OWATC’s “job bench.” 

Asynchronous Delivery 

Asynchronous delivery—making training content available at any time and thereby decoupling 

delivery of content from the time of its creation—is used by many TBL training programs, 

including all six Cohort I programs. Indeed, the only Cohort I programs that offers all of its 

current training courses synchronously—CATS—does so only as a by-product of taping those 

courses for uploading to the Internet. Consequently, even at CATS, once a course has been 

taught in real time, it is shortly available asynchronously on the program’s LMS. 

The principal reason all six Cohort I programs have opted to use primarily asynchronous delivery 

is convenience for both students and instructors. Indeed, using asynchronous delivery is the 

primary way that these programs make it easier for students with limited time or constrained 

schedules to participate in training. Since all content is available at any time, day or night, 

students are able to review course materials, complete assignments, and take tests whenever they 

have time. This means that students with families and/or jobs have an easier time scheduling 

their course work around their other responsibilities. 

Another reason for the prevalence of asynchronous delivery among Cohort I programs is that 

many view it as superior pedagogy because it allows students to interact with the content at their 

own pace. In the case of some programs, such as CATS, the OWATC program, and Nurse 

Return to Work, this means that students can progress as quickly or as slowly (within broad 

program parameters) as needed for their own comprehension. 

However, even in the case of programs with a more managed pace, such as CareerLink, GEM 

and GCPI, where students have to complete many assignments or an entire module within a 

week’s time, respondents said that asynchronous delivery resulted in improved comprehension of 

course material. This is because it allows these students to interact with training content when, 

IV-15 
 

as one GEM student put it, they are “in the right mindset,” and not at a time when they cannot 

concentrate, such as after a bad day at work. In addition, asynchronous delivery allows students 

from these two programs numerous opportunities to review material before assignments are due. 

For example, one GEM student noted that she sometimes listens to a weekly course lecture two 

or three times in the course of a week to ensure that she fully understands what is being 

presented, a practice which helps her do better on exams and assignments. 

Summary 

Providing effective training in a TBL environment can prove challenging, particularly since there 

are a number of different ways to approach instruction and content delivery and it is often not 

clear what the best approach might be for different student populations. The programs in Cohort 

I, for example, took different approaches to online learning and employed a wide variety of 

technologies for instruction and content delivery. The approach to online learning used by 

CATS, CareerLink, and the OWATC program can aptly be described as “interactive” in that 

students are required to interact with course material as part of the learning process. GEM, 

Nurse Return to Work, and GCPI employ an approach that moves a step further, incorporating 

requirements that foster social interaction among students in an attempt to create community as 

well as to keep students focused and engaged. 

With the exception of CATS, all the programs employ a blended approach to learning, 

combining in-person elements with online instruction. Blended learning is increasingly 

becoming the “method of choice” for training programs because of the belief that it is a more 

engaging approach that also fosters better knowledge retention. While staff across Cohort I 

programs share this belief, their approaches to blending vary in structure, extent, and 

purposefulness. 

Cohort I programs provided a number of different rationales for why blended approaches work 

best for their student populations. A hands-on approach is simply required for training students 

in at least some of the practical skills that are central components of the programs at OWATC, 

CareerLink, and Nurse Return to Work. Blended approaches provide opportunities for peer 

networking and relationship building, which are highly valued in the GEM and Nurse Return to 

Work programs. Maintaining a productive pace, both to combat social loafing and to 

appropriately adapt training to the capacities of each student, is also addressed through blended 

approaches, particularly at CareerLink and OWATC. Finally, instructors engage in blended 

approaches because they believe that it elevates the quality of their programs and because it is 

simply sound pedagogy. 

IV-16 
A second, almost universally adopted method is asynchronous delivery. Cohort I programs 

overwhelmingly opted for this method primarily because of its convenience for students, but also 

because it gives students the ability to move at their own paces and review all content as much as 

necessary, thereby helping them learn more effectively. 

IV-17 

V. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND 

PARTNERSHIPS/LINKAGES 

This chapter covers two related topics: the administration of Cohort I TBL programs and the 

partnerships and linkages the programs have developed. After a brief description of the grantee 

organizations, the chapter discusses how and where each program fits within its grantee 

organization and how it is staffed. The chapter then describes the partnerships and linkages the 

programs have established with employers, the public workforce system, educational institutions, 

and other organizations. 

Administration of TBL Programs 

The TBL programs in Cohort I are administered by two types of grantee organizations: 

institutions of higher education and private non-profits. Four grantees are institutions of higher 

education: 

	 Greenville Technical College (GTC), a four-campus community college system
 

serving Greenville county, South Carolina; 

	 Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA), the second largest community 

college in the US, with six campuses and two educational centers serving 

Northern Virginia; 

	 Ogden-Weber Applied Technology College (OWATC), a community college 

with four locations in Weber County, Utah, that offers two-year degrees and 

vocational training; and 

	 University of Colorado, Denver (UCD), one of the campuses of the University of 

Colorado, which offers bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees via thirteen 

separate schools and colleges. 

Two grantees are private non-profit organizations: 

	 Able-Disabled Advocacy, Inc. (A-DA), which provides employment and training 

services to individuals with disabilities in the San Diego area; and 

	 The Guidance Center (TGC), a behavioral health and human services organization 

that serves Wayne County, Michigan. 

V-1 
Each of the higher education grantees administers its TBL program through a specific academic 

department, division, or college within the institution. For example, at NOVA, the TBL program 

(GCPI) is housed within the Geospatial Technology Systems Program in the college’s 

Communications and Human Studies Department. Somewhat similarly, OWATC’s TBL grant is 

administered by the Information Technology program in the Department of Information 

Technology and Business. The GEM program, meanwhile, is part of UCD’s business school, 

although the program is housed and administered separately from the rest of the school. Since its 

program leads to reinstatement of a nursing license rather than a degree, GTC’s TBL program 

(Nurse Return to Work) is under the school’s Corporate and Career Development Division, 

which provides continuing education and training for corporate, professional, and personal 

development. 

Among the private non-profit grantees, TBL projects are administered in the same units as 

similar programs. For example, A-DA’s CareerLink program is administered in the same unit 

and by the same program director as the agency’s Projects within Industry placement program 

for persons with disabilities. Similarly, CATS is part of TGC’s Virtual Center for Excellence, 

which provides numerous online training programs to mental health workers in Wayne County. 

To administer their TBL programs, each of the six Cohort I grantees has from four to seven staff, 

excluding instructors, who work at least part-time on the program (please see Exhibit V-1). 

Although there is some variety in the roles these staff play, four particular roles are common 

across most programs. 

	 Program director/Grant administrator. All of the six programs have at least 

one staff member serving in this role. 

	 Instructional designer. All the programs except the one at OWATC have had an 

instructional designer assist with designing or editing online course material. At 

two programs—CareerLink and GCPI—the instructional designer played a major 

role in the design phase, but spends little time working with the TBL program on 

an ongoing basis. The instructional designers for both Nurse Return to Work and 

GCPI are also assigned to assist other online programs offered by GTC and 

NOVA; the instructional designer for CareerLink is a SkillSoft employee who 

works with a number of organizations that use SkillSoft training programs. 

	 LMS manager/online programs director. Four of the six grantees designate a 

staff person to oversee the program’s LMS and other technology. In two of these 

four programs—Nurse Return to Work and CATS—this individual plays this role 

for the grantee organization as a whole, rather than just for the TBL program. For 

example, at Nurse Return to Work, the staff person in this role is the director of 

GTC’s Online College, while at CATS the role is played by TGC’s executive 

director of program operations. By contrast, GEM has its own dedicated staff 

V-2 
 

 

person in this role, its associate director of online programs, while in OWATC’s 

TBL program, one of the two primary instructors serves in this role. 

	 Student liaison. Three of the six programs have at least one person serving in the 

role of student liaison. At GEM and CATS, this role is played by a single staff 

person; at OWATC, two staff—the program secretary and the academic 

counselor—serve as liaisons to students. 

Exhibit V-1: 

Number of Staff at Cohort I TBL Programs 

Nurse Return 

CareerLink CATS GEM to Work GCPI OWATC 

Grant 

administrator/ 

Program 

director 

2 

(1 is A-DA’s 

executive 

director) 

1 1 1 2 

(1 is also 

an 

instructor) 

2 

Instructional 

designer 

1 

(works for 

SkillSoft, not 

A-DA) 

1 

(Continuing 

education 

coordinator) 

1 1 

(works with 

many GTC 

online 

courses) 

1 

(assigned 

to work 

with TBL 

grant by 

online 

college) 

LMS/online 

programs 

director 

1 

(also the 

program’s 

instructor) 

1 

(works on all 

online 

programs at 

TGC’s Virtual 

Center for 

Excellence) 

1 1 

(works with all 

GTC online 

courses) 

Liaison with 

students 

1 1 2 

(academic 

counselor 

and program 

secretary) 

Other staff 2 3 1 1 

Total TBL 

program staff 

(excluding 

instructors) 

4 6 7 4 4 4 

Partnerships and Linkages 

To be eligible for ETA’s TBL grants, all TBL programs were expected to have “strategic 

partnerships with recognized or emerging high growth/high-demand industries, educational and 

V-3 
 

 

 

training institutions and the public workforce system.”1 This section of the chapter describes the 

partnerships and linkages developed thus far by Cohort I grantees, particularly those with 

employers, the public workforce system, and educational institutions. 

Partnerships and Linkages with Employers 

In keeping with the requirement in ETA’s SGA, partnerships with employers in highgrowth/high-demand industries are a major focus for all Cohort I TBL programs. Programs are 

highly motivated to establish partnerships with employers because of the many benefits of such 

relationships. To ensure that their graduates will be readily employable, programs want their 

curricula to be aligned with employer needs and industry standards, and the best way to achieve 

this goal is to receive advice and guidance directly 

from employer partners. And even after completing 

Employer Involvement at GEM development of their curricula, TBL programs have 

multiple reasons to continue to reach out to employers. A primary reason for GEM’s strong 

Employers may provide internships2

 for program connection with energy industry 

employers is that the idea for the participants, hire program completers, refer potential program originated with a Denver- program instructors, help programs keep up with based vice president of an 

industry changes, and contribute funding and in-kind international energy company. The 

result has been a program that has resources. In the case of GEM, the strong employer received more than $1.5 million in focus has even deeper roots: the idea for the TBL financial support from the energy 

program originated with a high-growth/high-demand industry. Energy company 

representatives are also active on employer—the vice president of an energy company multiple GEM committees, (please see accompanying text box, Employer particularly those that advise the 

Involvement at GEM). program on curriculum and 

marketing. Several companies also 

support the program by covering Due to the highly targeted nature of each TBL tuition costs for employees who are 

program’s particular industry focus, each program is being groomed as future corporate 

managers. carefully targeting that particular industry for its 

employer partnerships. Program staff conduct 

outreach to potential employers in these targeted industries in a few ways. One method is to ask 

1	 “Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) under the Employment and 

Training Administration’s (ETA) Technology-Based Learning (TBL) Initiative.” Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 

120, June 20, 2008. 

2	 GTC uses the term externship, a term used in the health care industry, rather than internship. However, because 

the meaning of the two words is basically synonymous, in the interest of brevity, this report uses internship 

throughout. 

V-4 
 

existing employer partners for introductions to potential new partners. GEM, for example, has 

relied heavily on current energy industry partners to bring in other such companies. For 

example, the vice president of an international oil company that is a major supporter of GEM has 

met with executives of other oil and gas companies with offices in Denver to discuss and 

encourage partnership with the program. Another method is to make use of the employer 

linkages of other partners. For example, A-DA’s partner, SDFF, has helped CareerLink to 

develop a number of new employer partnerships in the IT industry. 

Employer partners commonly play several key roles in TBL programs. One such role is to serve 

on a program’s advisory board. Four of the six Cohort I programs have some kind of advisory 

board or committee made up primarily of employers. Two of these boards—those at GEM and 

OWATC—serve only the TBL program, while the advisory boards at A-DA and TGC are 

organization-wide and provide input and advice to multiple grantee programs. Due to its broad 

focus, A-DA’s advisory board does not include as many IT industry employers as the director of 

CareerLink would prefer. Consequently, she worked with SDFF to form a separate TBL 

Employer Committee made up of staff from the two agencies that could focus specifically on 

conducting outreach to the IT industry. 

TBL advisory boards meet as often as bimonthly (at TGC) and as seldom as twice a year (at 

OWATC). The TGC and GEM advisory boards met weekly and monthly, respectively, during 

each program’s design phase, but now that their training programs are better established, the 

groups have opted to meet less often. 

Through their advisory roles (and sometimes through separate efforts), employers at three Cohort 

I programs play an important role in ensuring that the programs’ curricula are aligned with 

industry standards. For example, GTC involved several hospitals and health care systems in 

designing the Nurse Return to Work program’s curriculum. At GEM, energy industry 

representatives have been intimately involved with program design, suggesting and reviewing 

potential course topics and materials. For instance, as discussed above, energy industry 

executives suggested MBA-like courses specifically tailored to the industry, such as “Energy 

Accounting,” “Financial Management and Hedging in the Global Energy Markets,” and 

“Leadership and Decision Making in the Global Energy Environment.” For CATS, the program 

worked with employers who were members of its Direct Care Curriculum Advisory Committee 

to review existing training materials and select the most important for inclusion in the program’s 

online modules. At both GEM and CATS, employer partners play an additional role in helping 

to recommend and select instructors for the programs. 

V-5 
Another key role for employer partners is to provide internships or job placements for TBL 

students. As noted in Chapter II, CareerLink, GEM, and GCPI are all planning to provide 

placement services to TBL students when they complete their training programs. In addition, 

CareerLink, GCPI, and Nurse Return to Work all require students to have internships. 

Consequently, a major focus of these programs is to develop partnerships with employers who 

can hire TBL program graduates and/or provide internships to program students. As a result of 

these efforts, the GCPI program has received commitments from three local GIS employers to 

hire TBL students as paid interns and to cover the cost of tuition for one to four credits. 

Similarly, GTC’s Nurse Return to Work program has developed partnerships with at least eight 

local hospitals and health care systems to provide 84-hour clinical internships. CareerLink has 

also developed internships with a number of local employers and continues to try to develop new 

relationships. For instance, staff noted that they recently met with a San Diego-area naval 

program interested in providing internships, particularly for students who receive a specific 

certification related to data security. 

Finally, some employer partners also provide in-kind or cash resources to TBL programs. For 

example, as part of their commitment to the GEM program, several energy companies 

contributed the entire $500,000 match required for the ETA grant. In addition, a representative 

from one of these companies estimated that his company has since contributed a million dollars 

toward the development of a new building to permanently house the GEM program. His and 

other companies have also contributed to GEM by covering tuition costs for their employees who 

are enrolled in the program. 

Employer partners of Nurse Return to Work and GCPI also contribute in-kind resources to those 

programs as part of providing internships. For example, GTC’s employer partners cover the cost 

of paying for a preceptor to monitor Nurse Return to Work interns, and GCPI employer partners 

similarly cover the cost of supervising interns, as well as the cost of providing salary and tuition 

for paid internships. 

With two exceptions, these employer partnerships are informal. Only GCPI and Nurse Return to 

Work have established formal relationships with employer partners, developing signed 

memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with the employers that provide paid internships to 

TBL students. These MOUs spell out the roles and responsibilities of both the employer and the 

program in providing those internship opportunities. 

Partnerships and Linkages with the Public Workforce System 

In addition to developing partnerships with employers, TBL grantees were encouraged by ETA 

to develop or strengthen relationships with the public workforce system, including local WIBs 

V-6 
and One-Stop Career Center system partners. Thus far, however, only two Cohort I programs— 

CareerLink and the OWATC program—have strong partnerships with their local WIB or OneStop Career Center system, while two others, Nurse Return to Work and GCPI, have somewhat 

less-developed linkages. At the time of the site visits, GEM and CATS had basically no linkages 

with the local public workforce system. 

Both CareerLink and OWATC’s TBL program have strong relationships with the local public 

workforce system. OWATC’s strongest partnerships are with the Utah Department of 

Workforce Services (DWS), which runs the Ogden One-Stop Career Center and provides local 

WIA services, and with a community-based agency called Ogden-Weber Community Action 

Agency (OWCAP) that is receiving American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds 

(please see accompanying text box: OWATC’s Partnership with OWCAP). Representatives from 

both of these partners sit on the 

TBL program’s advisory board. OWATC’s Partnership with OWCAP 

Both, particularly OWCAP, 

OWATC has a strong informal partnership with OWCAP, a also refer individuals to the 

local recipient of ARRA training funds. The main purpose TBL program. In the case of 

of this partnership is recruitment for the TBL program. OWCAP, most of these Initially, OWCAP was supposed to provide computers to individuals are also co-enrolled 

those TBL students who lacked access to one; but since in the agency’s ARRA-funded most students come in to OWATC’s lab, it has not been 

program. In a further linkage necessary. Instead, OWCAP has used ARRA funds to 

with DWS, the TBL program create the Education to Careers program, which pays for 

participates in a DWS-run dislocated workers who are below the poverty line to 

training program that pays for participate in the TBL training at OWATC. The 

about half the cost of training organization supplements whatever source of funding 

for incumbent workers these dislocated workers have already set up to pay for 

tuition and books. OWCAP also provides these co-enrolled employed by for-profit 

students with child-care subsidies, case management, bus companies. 

passes, laptops, and job-readiness training. To work with 

CareerLink also has multiple these students, OWCAP recently co-located two 

counselors at OWATC; in addition, OWCAP staff regularly linkages with the local public 

attend the TBL program’s advisory committee meetings. workforce system. First, A-DA Thus far, this co-enrollment partnership has been very (the grantee that runs successful, with 40 of OWATC’s 159 TBL students co- CareerLink) has staff co-located enrolled in this OWCAP program by mid-October 2009. at San Diego’s South County 

One-Stop Career Center who can assess eligibility for CareerLink. Also, as part of the integrated 

intake and assessment system used at all San Diego One-Stop Career Centers, customers who are 

assessed as having a disability and have an interest in IT are referred to the CareerLink program. 

V-7 
 

Many of these customers are first co-enrolled in vocational rehabilitation (VR) or WIA programs 

before being sent to A-DA.3

 To ensure the success of this referral and co-enrollment partnership, 

A-DA makes sure that both WIA and VR staff are kept aware of any changes to CareerLink 

requirements or program features. Finally, the local WIB, the San Diego Workforce Partnership, 

has assisted CareerLink with developing relationships with employers and finding job 

placements. The WIB also helped A-DA make the determination to focus on the IT industry at 

CareerLink’s inception. 

Both GCPI and Nurse Return to Work have some linkages with their local public workforce 

systems, but these linkages are not as well developed as those of CareerLink and the OWATC 

program. Both programs have relationships with staff at local One-Stop Career Centers who 

refer individuals to the TBL programs for training. When referred individuals are co-enrolled in 

both WIA and the TBL program, the WIA program covers the cost of students’ tuition and 

books, as well as providing them case management and support services. One of these coenrolled students in GTC’s Nurse Return to Work program was also allowed to use a local OneStop Career Center’s computer lab to complete her training. 

However, the number of students in Nurse Return to Work and GCPI who are co-enrolled in 

WIA programs is small. According to the program’s July–September 2009 quarterly report, only 

two Nurse Return to Work students were co-enrolled in WIA. One reason for this low coenrollment in GTC’s program is that local WIA programs mostly co-enroll LPN students, and 

these students make up a small portion of Nurse Return to Work students. At GCPI, coenrollment has been limited due to concerns over how likely GIS students are to become 

employed after completion of the program. Co-enrollment has also been low because the cost of 

the TBL program is just over the two local WIBs’ training caps and its length is just slightly 

longer than what is usually allowed. GCPI has been meeting with local WIB representatives to 

see how to overcome these challenges and increase co-enrollment. 

Finally, GEM and CATS have little or no relationship with their local public workforce systems. 

Although GEM originally had plans to coordinate with the local WIB and One-Stop Career 

Center system regarding recruitment of participants—even developing a formal MOU calling for 

the local WIB to market the program and refer ten candidates a year for three years, with the 

TBL program covering $4,500 in WIB administrative expenses—no referrals had been made as 

of late August 2009. Similarly, CATS originally planned to coordinate with local WIBs to 

receive referrals, but had also not done so by the time of the site visit in early November 2009. 

3

 At least 75 percent of CareerLink students were reported to be co-enrolled in VR programs. 

V-8 
 

 

 

The main reason neither of these programs has developed these relationships is that the TBL 

programs have been very successful in generating program enrollment on their own. At GEM, 

program staff also found it hard to coordinate with the local WIB, as WIB staff had not followed 

through with planned meetings. 

Other Partnerships and Linkages 

In addition to partnerships and linkages with employers and the public workforce system, most 

of the Cohort I TBL programs have formed strong relationships with one or more other 

programs. For example, in creating its TBL program, A-DA developed a deep partnership with 

the SDFF. As part of this relationship, SDFF was heavily involved in program design, including 

in determining the program’s certification tracks. SDFF is also intimately involved in 

conducting employer outreach and finding placements for TBL students, serving on the 

Employer Committee described earlier and cold-calling potential IT employer partners. 

Foundation staff also take part in the assessment of applicants, helping to decide if they are 

suitable for the program. SDFF provided computer equipment for A-DA’s computer lab and has 

pledged to donate a laptop to any TBL student who does not have access to a computer at home. 

Finally, SDFF is planning to provide assistance with resume writing, interviewing, and 

professional attire for TBL program graduates. 

To encourage enrollment in its GIS Career Studies certificate program and in the field in general, 

GCPI has developed formal partnerships with three local high schools. Through this partnership, 

each school will provide GIS training onsite by providing an instructor and a classroom, with 

GCPI providing textbooks and 25 computer workstations and global positioning system units.4 

Students from these high schools will also be able to enroll in online courses offered by GCPI 

and receive up to eight college credits. Due to delays in grant implementation, these high school 

GIS courses have only begun at one of the partner schools, with courses at the other two schools 

set to commence in 2010. 

Similarly, GTC has developed formal partnerships with other South Carolina community 

colleges to expand the geographic range of its TBL project. These partner colleges provide lab 

space and instructors for students who live closer to the partner college than to GTC. To support 

its partners, GTC provides laptops, printers, and other supplies to be used at the satellite labs. At 

the time of the site visit, GTC’s main community college partner was Florence-Darlington 

College, but the program hopes to extend to Aiken Technical College in 2010, if Aiken is able to 

Global positioning system units provide positioning, navigation, and timing services to worldwide users on a 

continuous basis anywhere with an unobstructed view of four or more global positioning system satellites. 

V-9 

4 
enroll at least four local students and can find a qualified lab instructor. GTC is also working 

with York Technical College in eastern South Carolina on recruitment and pays a finder’s fee for 

students York Tech refers. 

Finally, TGC has developed a major partnership with the DWCCMHA. This agency and TGC’s 

Virtual Center for Excellence have had a long-standing partnership. In fact, the concept for 

developing the virtual center came from DWCCMHA, which saw a need for increasing online 

training opportunities for mental health and direct care workers and a system for capturing data 

on mental health workers. DWCCMHA has provided significant funding for both VCE and 

CATS and is active on VCE’s advisory board and plays a strong oversight role in administering 

CATS. 

Challenges in Developing Partnerships and Linkages 

Several of the TBL programs have faced challenges in developing partnerships and linkages. 

For example, OWATC’s TBL program has had difficulty developing relationships with some 

employer partners. At the outset of the grant, OWATC’s TBL program approached three large 

local employers, proposing that they provide tuition assistance to match the assistance provided 

through the grant, actively promote the program and refer interested employees, and participate 

on OWATC’s advisory board. However, due to the economic downturn, these employer partners 

have not been actively playing any of these roles. 

Similarly, OWATC has had difficulty developing partnerships with a number of local CBOs that 

the college had expected would play a role in the TBL program. OWATC had hoped these 

partners would participate in the TBL program’s advisory board and actively refer potential 

students. However, as of mid-October, these partners were not typically attending advisory 

board meetings, nor was it clear that they were referring many participants. 

Three other TBL programs have not developed partnerships with local workforce system 

partners that are as extensive as originally planned. For example, as discussed in the previous 

section, neither GEM nor CATS has developed planned referral relationships with local WIBs or 

One-Stop Career Centers, primarily because the TBL programs have been so successful with 

recruitment on their own. GCPI has struggled to strengthen its referral relationship with two 

local WIBs due to the WIBs’ training policies and expected outcomes. 

Communication challenges were cited in relation to the partnerships maintained by two of the 

TBL programs. GTC’s TBL program manager noted that despite the program’s large number of 

existing employer partnerships, the program still struggles to find enough clinical sites for 

internships. While she asserted that this shortage of clinical sites is partly due to the recession, 

V-10 
she also attributed it to problems communicating clearly with partners about requirements for 

externships. In relation to another TBL program, a staff person at a workforce agency 

commented that she felt the need for more regular communication between herself and the TBL 

program with which her agency has a partnership. 

Two programs faced challenges related to their advisory committees. At one of these programs, 

both staff and employer respondents reported that members of the program’s advisory committee 

sometimes did not understand that their role was only advisory and that program staff made final 

decisions about program operations. In addition, these same respondents reported that some 

advisory board members did not understand that as a government-funded project, the TBL 

program could not engage in political advocacy. Respondents from two programs (one of them 

the afore-mentioned) also noted that it was proving too difficult to make their advisory boards 

representative of their programs’ targeted industries. 

Summary 

The six Cohort I TBL grantees include four public institutions of higher education—three 

community or technical colleges and a university—and two private non-profit organizations. At 

the institutions of higher education, the TBL programs are housed within an academic 

department, the corporate and career development division, or the business school, while at the 

non-profit organizations, the TBL grants are administered in units with similar programs. 

Each of the six Cohort I TBL programs has from four to seven staff, excluding instructors, who 

devote at least part of their time to the program. Typically these staff include a program 

manager/grant administrator, an instructional designer, a staff person who oversees the LMS and 

other technology, and a student liaison. 

Have TBL Grants Led to Improved Partnerships? 

Despite some challenges related to the poor economy and communications issues, all six Cohort 

I grantees have developed or strengthened partnerships and linkages related to their TBL 

programs. Employers, in particular, are a focus of partnership efforts for all six programs, with 

GEM, CATS, GCPI, and Nurse Return to Work the most successful in developing employer 

partnerships thus far. CareerLink, although it has good relationships with employers overall, is 

still working on making better connections with IT employers, and the OWATC program is still 

struggling to get certain targeted employers to participate in its advisory board and help pay for 

incumbent workers to participate in its TBL training. 

V-11 
At the time of the site visits, four of the six programs had relationships with local WIBs and 

One-Stop Career Center systems. Of these four programs, CareerLink had the strongest 

connections, followed closely by the OWATC program. Nurse Return to Work and GCPI had 

also developed limited referral and co-enrollment linkages with the local public workforce 

system, and GCPI was in the middle of trying to strengthen its relationship. By contrast, GEM 

and CATS had little to no relationship with local WIBs or One-Stop Career Center systems and 

did not see a need to focus on developing such partnerships in the near future. 

Finally, five of the six Cohort I TBL programs have strong linkages with partners other than 

employers and workforce system agencies. A-DA’s CareerLink has established a strong 

partnership with SDFF, while GCPI has created relationships with four local high schools. The 

Nurse Return to Work program has developed a strong partnership with Florence Darlington 

Technical College, and CATS has a close relationship with DWCCMHA. 

V-12 
VI. EARLY OUTCOMES 

There are a number of expected outcomes for the ETA-funded TBL programs. Primary among 

these is an increase in the number of individuals who receive training in high-growth industries 

and achieve industry-recognized credentials. In addition, TBL programs are expected to help 

individuals overcome geographic and time-related barriers to participate in training that enables 

them to find and maintain employment. Other expected outcomes for the TBL programs include 

meeting the workforce needs of employers in targeted industries and successfully 

accommodating different learning styles. 

Because ETA awarded the TBL grants only a year ago, it is still very early to discuss the status 

of most of these expected outcomes. Consequently, this report will provide only a very brief 

discussion of some preliminary outcome data and participant feedback, with a more complete 

and detailed discussion of outcomes to come in the final report. 

Increasing Enrollment 

One of the primary expected outcomes for ETA’s TBL grants is to use TBL methods to increase 

the number of students trained by each grantee. Consequently, in the statement of work 

submitted in response to ETA’s SGA, each of the grantees included enrollment goals for its TBL 

program that will achieve this outcome. Since each of the TBL grants still has more than two 

years before its completion, it is too early to know whether the six Cohort I programs will be 

successful in reaching these goals. However, early signs are encouraging. As shown in Exhibit 

VI-1, these programs had enrolled, by mid-fall 2009, from 20 to 53 percent of the total number 

of students they had targeted for enrollment, putting these programs either on or ahead of 

schedule to meet their enrollment goals over the three-year grant period. 

VI-1 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit VI-1: 

Baseline and TBL Enrollment1
 

Nurse Return 

CareerLink CATS GEM to Work GCPI OWATC 

Baseline 

Annual 

Enrollment 

0 0 0 72 82 85 

TBL 

Enrollment 

through 

Sept/Oct 

2009 

28 8852

 58 78 8 59 

Expected 

Cumulative 

TBL 

Enrollment3 

80 1675 192 

(6 cohorts of 

32 students) 

291 355 300 

Percent of 

Total 

Enrollment 

Achieved 

35% 53% 30% 27% 2% 20% 

Lowering Barriers to Participation 

Another expected outcome of the TBL grants is to make it easier for individuals to overcome 

barriers that might otherwise have prevented or discouraged them from participating in training. 

Although it is still too early to know exactly how successful grantees have been in this area, site 

visitors did collect limited information related to this outcome. 

One common barrier to receiving training is living too far from the school or organization 

offering the training to make regular to-and-from transportation practical. If transportation 

options are poor, this kind of barrier can arise even for students living in the city in which the 

training site is located. In theory, TBL methods lower this barrier very effectively by reducing 

1	 Data for CareerLink, GTC and CATS were from the most recent quarterly report and as of 9/30/09; data for 

GEM were as of 12/9/2009 from the most recent performance report to DOL; data from OWATC were from the 

site visit and as of 10/21/09; data for GCPI were not available at the time of the site visit and the grantee had not 

submitted any quarterly reports that included these data as of the time this report was completed. 

2	 This is not an unduplicated count as it includes participants in each of the four CATS trainings (Recipient Rights 

Annual Update, 801; Medicaid Fair Hearings, Local Appeals, and Grievances, 21; Health Insurance Portability 

and Accountability Act, 45; Person-Centered Planning, 18), and participants may have taken part in more than 

one of these trainings. 

3	 These data are taken from either the grantee’s original grant proposal or from site visitor notes. 

VI-2 
 

 

the need to be physically present at the training site, opening up participation to students living at 

otherwise impractical distances from the training site. 

Due to variations in their target populations, the programs have service areas of varying size, 

giving different meanings to the lowering of geographic barriers. Of the six programs visited, 

only two—GEM and Nurse Return to Work—are specifically targeting students from outside 

their local regions for enrollment.4

 GEM, which is open to qualified individuals anywhere in the 

world, has a number of students who live outside the greater Denver area, including one in Abu 

Dhabi. The Nurse Return to Work program has also served a large number of students from 

outside the Greenville area, although most have been from South Carolina. In most cases, 

students from outside the Greenville and Denver areas would have been unable to participate in 

these programs without the use of TBL online methods. A Nurse Return to Work student who 

lived several hours by car from Greenville affirmed that the online nature of the program had 

made it easier for her to participate. 

While CareerLink targets only the San Diego area, and the program’s required bi-monthly inperson classes make it infeasible for students to live too far away, TBL methods have still made 

it easier for CareerLink students to complete the training. For example, arranging transportation 

can be a major hassle for CareerLink’s students since a number cannot drive and must rely on 

public transportation or paratransit services to get around. Consequently, the fact that they need 

to travel to A-DA only twice a month during the online portion has made it much easier for these 

students to participate in training. 

The other common barrier to participating in training is having time constraints related to 

employment or family obligations. Limited evidence collected during the site visits indicates 

that the self-paced, asynchronous structure of all six Cohort I programs has made it easier for 

students with time constraints—such as incumbent workers or individuals with young children— 

to participate in training. For example, a student in the OWATC program commented that the 

self-paced nature of the TBL program allows her the flexibility of participating in training during 

the hours her children are in school and returning home by mid-afternoon when they return. 

The CATS program has also made it much easier for Wayne County direct care workers to 

access training. For example, one local employer said that before CATS, she found it very 

difficult to allow her workers to go off-site to participate in training because her organization 

needs its on-duty staff available at all times. Since the CATS trainings have become available, 

The CATS program is also considering opening up its online offerings to users in other parts of the country, but 

is unclear when or if this will occur. 

VI-3 

4 
 

 

 

however, she no longer has this problem as she has set up a computer in her office for staff to use 

to access CATS trainings whenever they have a few spare minutes. 

Similarly, having much of GCPI’s GIS certificate program online has made it easier for TBL 

students to avoid the congestion on Northern Virginia’s roads. This is particularly important 

since the program director reported that 70 to 80 percent of GCPI’s students are working adults 

with limited time to travel to in-person classes. 

Early Experiences of TBL Students and Employers 

Site visitors had opportunities to interview a number of students in the TBL programs, as well as 

several employers who have hired or plan to hire program graduates. Their experiences and 

views provide some indication of the programs’ progress in achieving some of the expected 

outcomes. 

Students interviewed during the site visits generally expressed strong satisfaction with the TBL 

programs. For example, one GEM student commented that the “delivery of the program is 

excellent,” and other GEM students asserted that their level of understanding of course content is 

higher than it would have been in a traditional class. These students attributed this improved 

comprehension to GEM’s TBL structure, which allows them to watch and re-watch recorded 

video lectures and podcasts whenever convenient, rather than only once at the same time each 

week. A student who had participated in a CATS training also had good things to say about her 

experience. She noted that the content of the course she completed is useful to her, and that she 

strongly encourages her colleagues to make use of CATS trainings. Students in other Cohort I 

programs expressed similar positive views.5 

A few students also had some suggestions for improvement. For example, two students at one of 

the primarily online programs described how they would like the program to offer more 

opportunities for in-person, hands-on instruction. Students at another program that requires 

group projects said that they preferred the groups to be organized based on grades, with the 

strongest students assigned to the same groups. These same students and those from another 

primarily online program also wanted more detailed course syllabi to allow them to plan for how 

to complete course assignments despite work and family obligations. 

As the site visitor was not able to arrange a focus group or interviews with students in the GCPI GIS Career 

Studies certificate program, no data on student satisfaction was collected for that program. 

VI-4 

5 
Due to the fact that most of these programs had served relatively small numbers of students by 

the time of the site visits, program respondents had only limited ideas about why some students 

performed better than others in TBL programs. Respondents at five grantees did note that the 

most successful students appeared to be strongly self-motivated. In addition, GEM’s associate 

director of programs commented that because course work is completed at home during a 

student’s spare time, having support from family and friends is also important. According to the 

program manager from the Nurse Return to Work program, flexibility and openness to new 

teaching methods are other important characteristics of successful TBL students. 

Although it is similarly too early to judge whether TBL programs have been successful in 

assisting students with finding and maintaining employment, employers were generally very 

positive about the programs and several had hired or said they intended to hire TBL graduates. 

For example, two employers that provided internships to CareerLink students reported that they 

hoped to hire them as regular employees. Another employer who has hired several Nurse Return 

to Work graduates said she is “extremely pleased” with their skills, particularly in the areas of 

communication and critical thinking. One employer who hired GCPI interns and one graduate 

said that the program graduate was as well-trained as graduates he has hired from traditional 

programs. Finally, two direct care employers in Wayne County, Michigan said they are very 

happy with the CATS program, with one calling it a “Godsend” because it makes it easier for 

him to ensure that his direct care workers receive needed training. 

Summary 

After only a year of implementation, it appears that Cohort I TBL programs are on target to 

achieve a number of expected outcomes. Most programs are either on or ahead of schedule to 

achieve their goals of increased enrollment. The use of TBL methods does seem to have helped 

students overcome barriers related to distance and time, making it easier for these students to 

participate in training. Employers report being happy with Cohort I TBL programs and 

graduates, with several noting that they have hired or would like to hire program graduates. In 

addition, students report being generally quite satisfied with their experiences in the programs. 

VI-5 

 

VII. CONCLUSION 

Less than a year after receiving their TBL grants, the six Cohort I grantees have designed and 

begun implementation of their TBL training programs. During this process, they have faced a 

number of challenges and developed some possible promising practices. Although these 

challenges and promising practices have been noted in the previous chapters, they have not yet 

been brought together and summarized. Doing so is the purpose of this final chapter. 

Promising Practices 

Cohort I grantees have developed a number of possible promising practices in the areas of 

teaching methods, technology, instructors, and partnerships: 

Teaching Methods 

	 Requiring in-person activities to help students maintain motivation and 

develop relationships. Three of the primarily online TBL programs in 

Cohort I—CareerLink, GEM, and Nurse Return to Work— specifically 

require certain in-person activities. These activities are designed to meet a 

number of program objectives, one of which is to help students remain 

motivated, partly by developing closer relationships with their instructors and 

fellow students. Another objective of in-person activities is to facilitate 

information sharing, both among students and between instructors and 

students. After meeting in person, students also find it easier to set up virtual 

study groups and instructors find it easier to assess student comprehension and 

progress, adjusting their teaching accordingly. 

	 Recording training content and making it available in multiple, easy-touse formats. By making recorded lectures available via simple and easy-tonavigate technology—such as that used by CATS courses or via podcasts as at 

GEM—some TBL programs have made it extremely trouble-free and 

convenient for students to access training content. Some students asserted that 

the ability to easily review course materials has enabled them to more 

efficiently master training content. 

	 Exploiting the potential for online interaction. Due to the importance of 

student–instructor and student–student interaction in online courses, some 

VII-1 
Cohort I programs have developed additional techniques for such interaction. 

One such technique, used by both GEM and GCPI, is to require students to 

use discussion boards to respond to instructor questions. GEM instructors 

noted that this ensures ongoing participation by all students, something that’s 

difficult to engender in traditional in-person classes. Another technique, used 

by GCPI, is to use a social networking site where students can network with 

one another and the instructor and share information about a variety of 

program-related matters. 

Technology 

	 Giving in-person orientations to key technologies. To lessen the chance 

that students will face problems using the technology required for their online 

training, three primarily online Cohort I programs provide in-person 

orientations to using their technology. GEM, one of the programs that does 

this, even encourages students to bring their laptops to this orientation so that 

the students can try to log in to the program’s LMS during the session. That 

way, program staff can provide immediate technical support if needed, 

making it less likely that students will have to call in or email for technical 

support the first time they try to log in at home. 

	 Technological solution to problems related to installing and using certain 

software on home computers. To eliminate the problems GCPI students 

have faced in purchasing and running GIS software programs on their home 

computers, the program plans to install desktop virtualization on a computer 

server at NOVA, thereby allowing students to access GIS software from this 

server, rather than from their own hard drives. 

TBL Instructors 

	 Providing software that helps instructors adapt content for online 

teaching. GTC has begun using a software program called SoftChalk 

LessonBuilder, which allows instructors to publish training content to the 

college’s LMS with no knowledge of programming. This software is likely to 

make it easier for the Nurse Return to Work program’s Internet instructor to 

create online content, without requiring technical support or assistance from 

an instructional designer. 

	 Providing training to support online instructors. Each of the TBL 

programs in Cohort I provides training for both new and continuing online 

instructors. This training has been particularly critical in helping new online 

instructors understand how to create course content or revise it so that it works 

in an online environment. 

Partnerships and Linkages 

	 Engendering extensive employer involvement. Through deep and extensive 

relationships with employers, GEM has developed a truly employer-driven 

program. One consequence of this is that even in a poor economy, GEM has 

VII-2 
continued to receive support—including financial contributions—from 

employers. 

	 Developing strong co-enrollment partnerships. Through its co-enrollment 

partnership with OWCAP, OWATC has provided a significant source of 

support—both financially and otherwise—for about a quarter of its students. 

These co-enrolled students are able to have 100 percent of their books, tuition, 

and fees covered and receive services such as case management, job readiness 

training and transportation assistance, substantially easing the burden of 

participating in OWATC’s training. 

	 Developing strong linkages with the public workforce system to increase 

employer and student referrals. CareerLink’s multiple partnerships with the 

public workforce system have resulted in numerous referrals of potential 

students to its program from local One-Stop Career Center staff and VR. In 

addition, the local WIB has agreed to assist the program in developing 

relationships with additional employers. Both CareerLink’s partnership with 

its local WIB and OWATC’s partnership with DWS have assisted those 

programs in understanding the needs of their targeted industries. 

Challenges Faced by Cohort I Grantees 

In addition to the above-noted promising practices, Cohort I grantees have thus far faced a 

number of challenges in the areas of teaching methods, technology, instructors, and partnerships: 

TBL Methods 

	 The appropriate amount of structure can be difficult to determine at the 

outset. Two primarily online programs have had to recalibrate the degree of 

structure in their programs in order to meet students’ needs. To address a 

student need for greater specificity about course assignments, GEM has 

already required instructors to provide more detailed syllabi (and during the 

site visit, students requested even more information). Another program, 

CareerLink, has also included more structure in its program, adding to its test 

preparation component a second in-person orientation, bi-weekly study 

assignments, a detailed study plan and a planned date for certification. 

	 The right balance between in-person and online activities can be difficult 

to set. CareerLink students wanted more in-person activities to provide them 

with additional opportunities for hands-on practice in the program’s computer 

lab. 

Technology Used in TBL Programs 

	 Server problems may interfere with program operation. The Nurse 

Return to Work program faced major problems with the college’s computer 

server during the summer of 2009. Due to these problems, Nurse Return to 

Work students were unable to access program content as needed, and some 

VII-3 
students were even interrupted during testing and lost partial test results. To 

remedy this problem, GTC contracted with BlackBoard, a major commercial 

provider of e-learning services, to host all of the college’s online programs, 

including the Nurse Return to Work program. 

	 Software program glitches may interfere with program operation. 

Respondents from several programs had problems using their LMS as well as 

other types of software, such as Adobe Connect and WIMBA. GCPI students 

had difficulty using several types of GIS software on their home computers 

because of the software’s memory requirements. 

TBL Instructors 

	 Some instructors have difficulty adapting to online teaching. Instructors 

who were new to teaching in an online environment sometimes had difficulty, 

partly because they did not understand that online learning required a different 

approach to instruction. In addition, some of these instructors said that they 

had a hard time adjusting to certain requirements of online teaching, such as 

the need to divide lectures into shorter segments and to use alternative modes 

of communication, such as discussion boards. 

	 Students’ needs for assistance can put unreasonable demands on teaching 

staff. As OWATC’s TBL program is self-paced and students require a 

significant amount of one-on-one assistance, instructors faced a significant 

challenge in trying to meet the needs of all of the program’s students. Due to 

this problem, the program had to cap the number of students allowed to enroll. 

Developing Partnerships and Linkages 

	 It can be difficult to develop co-enrollment linkages with the public 

workforce system. Both GCPI and GEM faced challenges in developing coenrollment partnerships with the public workforce system. In the case of 

GCPI, these challenges were due to local WIBs’ policies for funding training, 

which clashed with the characteristics of the TBL program. For GEM, when 

faced with a string of cancelled meetings, the program saw little need to 

continue to push for a relationship with its local WIB since it had been very 

successful in recruiting on its own. 

	 Some employers can be reluctant to partner under the strain of the 

recession. OWATC’s TBL program and the Nurse Return to Work program 

faced challenges in developing strong partnerships with some employers; in 

both cases this was at least partly due to the poor economic conditions. These 

employers were less interested in being extensively involved either because 

they no longer had the budget or the staff to work with a TBL program to 

provide training for their workers, or because their lower hiring needs reduced 

their interest in partnering with a program that could meet those needs. 

	 Some employer partners may want too much control. One program faced 

a challenge in having employers assume too much ownership over the 

VII-4 
program. These employers, who participate on one or more of the program’s 

advisory committees or subcommittees, had trouble accepting that their role is 

merely advisory, and that program staff make final decisions about program 

policies. Some of these employers also did not understand that because TBL 

programs are publicly funded, they must remain politically neutral. 

	 CBO partners may face challenges that reduce their ability to fully 

participate. OWATC has had difficulty getting CBO partners to attend the 

meetings of its advisory committee or make many referrals because these 

partners are over-stretched and too busy. 

VII-5 

APPENDIX A: 

TBL Evaluation Research Questions 

 

 

 

Evaluation Research Questions 

The evaluation’s research questions are presented below organized into nine categories: (1) 

contextual factors; (2) planning and design; (3) program administration, organization and 

leadership; (4) linkages and partnerships; (5) recruitment and intake; (6) training delivery; (7) 

additional services; (8) outcomes; and (9) implementation challenges and promising practices. 

 Contextual Factors 

	 What is the grantee’s prior experience with using TBL strategies and methods? 

Does the grantee already have an established eLearning component and learning 

management system? 

	 What is the status of the TBL training program? Does it need to be developed 

entirely, converted to a TBL format, or simply updated or improved?
 

	 What are employer needs in targeted sectors? 

	 What are overall economic conditions? 

	 What is the capacity of partners for collaboration on a TBL project? What is the 

history of collaboration between partners? What experience do they have with 

TBL? 

	 What are the characteristics of the participants targeted for the TBL project? Do 

they have prior knowledge and experience with computers? What is their prior 

labor market experience? What are their demographics? 

Planning and Design 

	 What was the planning and design process for the TBL initiative? Who was 

involved and what were their roles? Were partners, such as employers, involved 

in the design of curriculum? 

	 How were training programs and modules designed? Tested? Did grantees hire a 

program or training designer to develop their TBL programs? What innovative 

and effective strategies and designs do these staff bring? 

	 What is the initiative’s philosophy and approach to TBL? How have grantees 

envisioned the role of e-learning at their institutions? How does this align with 

the grantee’s mission and goals? How is this vision manifested in the design of 

their TBL trainings? 

	 What are grantees’ TBL program objectives in terms of industry focus and local 

or regional economic development? 

Program Administration, Organization and Leadership 

	 What are the goals and objectives that grantees establish for their initiative? How 

are these communicated to initiative partners and staff? 

A-1 
 

	 How is each TBL grantee’s initiative administered and managed? How is each 

TBL initiative staffed? Who is responsible for providing training? Other
 

services?
 

Linkages and Partnerships 

	 What partnership arrangements have been established and how are resources 

being leveraged to achieve the grant’s objectives? 

o	 What types of linkages have been established with local Workforce Investment 

Boards and other elements of the public workforce investment system (e.g., OneStop Career Centers, WIA Title IB providers, WIRED grantees, and other One-Stop 

system partners)? 

o	 What types of linkages have been established with employers, particularly in targeted 

industries or sectors? 

o	 What types of linkages have been established with other training providers and 

educational institutions? 

o	 What types of linkages have been established with community based organizations 

(CBOs) or faith-based community organizations (FBCOs)? 

	 How were these linkages/relationships formed? What are the challenges and 

successful strategies? How have these linkages worked overall? How have they 

evolved over time? What are the “missing” or unsuccessful linkages?
 

	 What leveraged resources—cash and/or in-kind—are available from partners and 

other public/private organizations? To what extent and with what effectiveness 

have cost-sharing agreements been established among partners?
 

	 How are the partnerships formalized (e.g., memoranda of understanding, 

contractual agreements, fee-for-service or voucher arrangements, referral systems, 

etc.)? 

	 What referral system(s) have been established or strengthened between partners? 

	 What have been the strategies for inter-partner communication? 

o	 How do the various entities/partners remain informed about both grant- and clientlevel information? What formal and informal communication mechanisms have 

been established? 

o	 What have been the key barriers to effective inter-partner communication? 

	 How successful have grantees been in establishing fruitful and lasting 

relationships with partners?
 

Recruitment and Intake/Admissions 

	 What is the nature of outreach/recruitment efforts for the TBL initiative? 

A-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 What strategies are involved for outreach/recruitment? What partners are 

involved in recruitment? What value-added do partners contribute to the 

recruitment process?
 

	 What is the intake/admissions process for the TBL initiative? What eligibility 

criteria are used? How is eligibility assessed? 

	 How is it decided which participants will undertake TBL versus alternative, more 

traditional training modes? How do the characteristics of the two groups differ? 

	 What assessments are conducted at intake/admission? Are computer skills 

assessed? Skill levels? General compatibility with a TBL learning environment? 

	 What is the range of basic computer skills that participants must have to 

successfully engage in the grantee’s TBL courses? If participant computer skills 

are assessed to be low, what computer training or support is provided? 

	 What equipment or infrastructure must students have to successfully participate in 

the TBL courses? If students lack sufficient or appropriate equipment, how do 

grantees address this? 

	 Who is the program targeting for services (demographically, geographically)? 

How does TBL meet the unique needs of grantees’ target groups? 

	 What is the enrollment of each grantee’s TBL initiative programs? What are the 

characteristics of these enrollees? Do they match with the target group? 

Training Delivery 

	 What faculty or instructors conduct classes and training? What preparation, 

training or support do TBL program faculty or instructors receive? Is this training 

and support sufficient to effectively conduct TBL courses? 

	 What types of TBL training programs do grantees develop and implement? 

	 What specific occupations, degrees and credentials do the TBL programs target? 

	 What delivery modes and methods do the grantee’s TBL programs employ? 

Asynchronous or synchronous delivery? Are programs strictly online or do they 

blend in-person components? Are they self-paced? 

	 What other TBL tools do programs use? Discussion boards? Wikis? 

Multimedia? Chat rooms? How do these additional tools contribute to the 

learning experience? 

	 What type of orientation or introduction do grantees offer students before taking 

the TBL courses? How useful are these introductions? 

	 How do TBL training modes and methods differ amongst grantee programs based 

on the training goals or student needs? 

	 How long do training programs last? How does this differ between self-paced 

and instructor led programs? 

A-3 
 

	 What is the nature and frequency of instructor-student and student-student 

interaction during TBL courses? Does this interaction lead to adequate learning 

experiences? What are the challenges and promising practices in increasing 

instructor and peer interaction? 

	 What learning management systems (LMS) do grantees use for their online 

courses? What are the challenges and benefits to using various LMS? What are 

the minimum functions that grantees believe are necessary in an LMS for a 

successful TBL program? 

	 What are the characteristics of effective user support/help desk components for 

TBL courses? 

	 What are the characteristics of user-friendly online training interfaces? 

	 What additional educational support or tutoring is available to students during 

TBL programs? How effective is this support? Is it technology-based or inperson? 

	 What accommodations are made to incorporate ADA requirements and increase 

training accessibility to students with disabilities? 

	 How is student progress assessed in the TBL courses? What mechanisms do TBL 

programs use to inform students of their progress and provide constructive 

feedback? Are they sufficient? 

	 How is academic integrity maintained in grantees’ TBL courses? What are the 

methods for ensuring students’ compliance with educational or training 

institutions’ academic integrity rules? What are the challenges that grantees face 

and the promising practices that they employ in this effort? 

	 What accommodations are made to ensure identity security/maintain the privacy 

of student identity? What are the challenges that grantees face in this effort? 

	 How are intellectual property rights for TBL program training content protected? 

	 What innovations do the TBL grantees incorporate into their implementation, and 

how do these innovations mesh with the more traditional mechanisms of 

delivering content also used by the grantees and their partners? 

Additional Services 

	 What other services, such as placement assistance, career counseling or job 

readiness training will grantees make available to participants? Do TBL 

participants have access to the same services as non-TBL training program 

participants? 

	 Do TBL program participants receive case management services? Who provides 

these services? What is the scope and frequency of these services? 

	 Are participants referred to other agencies for additional services? What types of 

referrals are most common? 

A-4 
 

 

 

Outcomes1 

	 What is the number of participants enrolled in TBL programs? How many more 

students were enrolled in training as a result of the initiative? 

	 What is the duration of participation in training programs? How many enrollees 

complete TBL programs? 

	 What specific services do participants receive while enrolled in TBL programs? 

	 What credentials, certificates or degrees are attained by TBL participants? 

	 Do TBL participants become employed following completion of participation in 

TBL programs? At what wages? 

	 Does program completion, attainment of certificates or credentials or labor market 

success vary by participant characteristics? By program characteristics or 

services (e.g., blended vs. online only, extent of computer or educational support, 

etc.) 

	 How satisfied are TBL program participants with their experience? How satisfied 

are faculty? 

	 How does this initiative advance the grantees’ ability to provide training for skills 

demanded by their regional economies and for high-growth/high-wage 

occupations and industries? 

	 Has the initiative resulted in strengthened partnerships between training providers, 

employers and WIBs? 

	 How successful are TBL programs in helping to accommodate different learning 

styles and paces among trainees. 

	 How successful are TBL programs in expanding the geographic reach of training 

and education to students who are outside of a commutable distance? 

	 Do TBL programs make it easier for individuals with limited time (e.g., single 

parents, incumbent workers) to participate and complete training programs?
 

	 Has the TBL initiative strengthened the local work force system’s e-learning 

capacity? 

Implementation Challenges and Promising Practices 

	 What major challenges in design and program delivery have the grantees 

encountered? How have they been addressed? With what success?
 

	 What are promising practices that can be gleaned from grantee experiences with 

TBL. Which of these practices are replicable? 

Because of the relatively short period of the evaluation, especially compared to the grantees’ period of 

performance, the evaluation will only be able to capture short-term outcomes and results from early enrollees. 

A-5 

1 

APPENDIX B: 

Cohort I Grantee Summaries 

 

 

Grantee: Able-Disabled Advocacy (A-DA) 

Primary Service Area: San Diego County, California 

TBL Initiative Funding: $584,600 

Industry/Sector: Information Technology (IT) 

Approximate Number to be Served by TBL Program: 80 

Program Summary 

The goal of Able-Disabled Advocacy’s CareerLink program is to enable or enhance the 

employment of disabled individuals using TBL strategies, while simultaneously addressing the 

local area’s IT workforce needs. The program provides participants with the opportunity to 

receive IT industry-recognized certifications in six areas. 

	 Contextual Factors: The decision to focus on the IT sector developed through labor market 

research and collaboration with the local WIB, the San Diego Workforce Partnership. The San 

Diego area has a long history of being a high-tech community, and other high-growth 

industries are also expected to need various types of IT professionals. The grantee also hopes 

to lower the need to bring in foreign IT workers through the H1B visa process. 

	 Experience with and Approach to TBL: A-DA’s primary experience has been in workforce 

development and case management for persons with disabilities. While A-DA had previously 

administered some small, short-term technology-focused training programs, CareerLink is the 

first to use online learning. 

	 Planning and Design: The design of the program was a collaborative effort between A-DA, 

the San Diego Futures Foundation and SkillSoft. SDFF has extensive experience and 

connections to the IT industry and provided A-DA with guidance on curriculum design and the 

types of certifications to offer. SkillSoft is a national leader in IT certification programs and 

worked closely with A-DA and SDFF to adapt SkillSoft’s existing online IT training programs 

for CareerLink. 

	 Program Administration, Organization, and Leadership: There are two dedicated staffers 

responsible for administering CareerLink. The project director oversees day-to-day operations, 

including student recruitment, employer/partner outreach, student tracking and reporting. The 

director of e-learning provides assistance and support for the online training component and 

serves as the program’s instructor. The program also has an advisory council that is primarily 

composed of employers. 

	 Linkages and Partnerships: CareerLink’s primary partner is SDFF. SDFF has been 

instrumental in program development and continues to assist with employer outreach, 

equipment donation, and soft-skills training. CareerLink has also developed close partnerships 

with the San Diego Workforce Partnership and the California Department of Rehabilitation. 

B-1 
 

 

	 Recruitment and Intake: The program primarily recruits via its website and referrals from 

partners. To ensure that participants are both adequately prepared and dedicated to the 

program, CareerLink has a multi-stage intake/enrollment process involving both a skills 

assessment and multiple in-person interviews with both program and SDFF staff. 

	 Training Delivery: CareerLink’s online component involves asynchronous interactive 

training modules. Students are required to complete at least one training module per week and 

supplement their online training with bi-weekly in-person classroom sessions. This ten to 

twelve-week training component is followed by approximately four weeks of preparation for 

the relevant industry certification exam.57 Following successful certification, CareerLink 

students are placed in 16-week internships. After completion of the internship, students 

receive up to ten weeks of job search and placement assistance from the program. 

57 As a result of a low certification exam success rate, the program recently revamped its test preparation 

component, shortening it from eight to four weeks and adding additional structured activities. 

B-2 
Grantee: Greenville Technical College (GTC) 

Primary Service Area: Greenville and other parts of South Carolina 

TBL Initiative Funding: $154,018 

Industry/Sector: Health Care/Nursing 

Approximate Number to be Served by TBL Program: 291 

Program Summary 

Greenville Technical College’s Nurse Return to Work through Technology Expansion (Nurse 

Return to Work) program offers courses that allow registered nurses and licensed practical 

nurses to have their licenses reinstated. 

	 Contextual Factors: South Carolina currently ranks 42nd in the ratio of nurses to general 

population and has one of the highest rates in the country for cancer, heart disease and stroke, 

and diabetes. However, nursing schools in the state are not currently graduating enough nurses 

to meet the need for approximately an additional 15,000 nurses by the period from 2015-2020. 

Nurses that were previously licensed require a relatively short training time to reactivate their 

licenses and represent a speedy solution to the challenge of supplying health care employers 

with additional nurses. 

	 Experience with and Approach to TBL: The Nurse Return to Work program was begun in 

2000, several years before GTC received its TBL grant. The college’s nursing outreach 

program decided to use the college’s existing radiation technician program as a model. 

	 Planning and Design: The TBL grant is being used to upgrade, improve and expand an 

already existing online-based nursing program. Specifically, GTC is using the TBL grant to 

fund: (1) new equipment; (2) updated videos for online streaming and lab use; and (3) updated 

software to enhance training delivery. 

	 Program Administration, Organization, and Leadership: The program is administered 

through GTC’s Corporate and Career Development Division and has the same staffing pattern 

as other continuing education courses at the college. The nursing outreach department head is 

program manager and she is supervised by college’s dean of corporate development. 

	 Linkages and Partnerships: The Nurse Return to Work program’s primary partner is 

Florence-Darlington Technical College, which provides the in-person lab skills component for 

nurses located closer to it than Greenville. A number of local health care employers provide 

students with required internships that often lead to jobs. 

	 Recruitment and Intake: The course is publicized on GTC’s website and on the websites of 

the South Carolina Board of Nursing and those of 16 other state boards of nursing. Nurses can 

enroll by phone, via the Internet, or in person. To be eligible, they must have been trained in 

an accredited nursing program and must have once held a US nursing license. 

B-3 
	 Training Delivery: The training program lasts from four and a half to six months and 

includes three months of online study, a ten-day skills lab, an 84-hour externship, and 

assistance with licensing. Online materials include lectures, videos and written materials. The 

instructor also regularly posts questions on a discussion board for the class to answer and 

occasionally conducts “live classroom” meetings that are archived for later viewing. Exams 

are also completed online. They are generated randomly from a test question bank and graded 

automatically. 

B-4 
 

Grantee: Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) 

Primary Service Area: Northern Virginia, VA 

TBL Initiative Funding: $492,458 

Industry/Sector: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

Approximate Number to be Served by TBL Program: 355 

Program Summary 

Northern Virginia Community College’s Geospatial Career Pipeline Initiative (GCPI) is 

designed to increase the number of geospatial technology professionals in the local workforce. 

The program’s main activity is a comprehensive GIS Career Studies Certificate program that 

includes courses offered in either a traditional in-person setting or online and a required 

internship. This certificate program aims to (1) give students entry-level GIS skills; (2) provide 

students who already have a master’s or baccalaureate degree with the skills necessary to 

increase their competitiveness in the profession or switch careers; and (3) give students the 

ability to gain an associate’s degree or transfer to a four-year institution. The program also has 

partnerships with three local high schools to provide assistance to those schools to provide GIS 

instruction. In addition, some students at those high schools will be co-enrolled in certain GCPI 

GIS courses and receive college credit. Finally, the program is also putting an introductory GIS 

course online (GIS 195) for NOVA students who are interested in the GIS certificate program. 

	 Contextual Factors: GIS is a rapidly expanding industry, ranked third on the President’s 

High-Growth Jobs Initiative. The need for GIS personnel within the U.S. is increasing, unlike 

the demand for jobs in many other industries. In the Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan area specifically, these jobs are particularly in demand, with a large number of 

government-related positions requiring both GIS skills and US citizenship for security 

clearance. 

	 Experience with and Approach to TBL: NOVA has considerable experience with online 

learning, as this is a major component of the college’s educational structure. The college has a 

virtual campus called the Extended Learning Institute, which has been in existence since 1975 

and offers online courses, telecourses and blended online courses. The first GIS class has been 

online since 2007, and TBL grant funds are providing the resources to put the other three GIS 

courses required for certification online. GCPI staff feel that GIS courses are particularly wellsuited to online learning, due to their inherent focus on computer technology. 

	 Planning and Design: The Director of Grants and Special Projects at NOVA held an internal 

competition to determine which of the college’s programs would best fit ETA’s TBL SGA. 

Once the GIS program was selected, she contacted the faculty member who could become 

GCPI’s program director. The design for the program primarily entailed migrating existing inB-5 
person courses to an online format. This design process took two semesters to complete and 

included a pilot period. 

	 Program Administration, Organization, and Leadership: The GCPI program is overseen 

by the program director, who is also the program’s primary instructor. The Director of Grants 

and Special Projects at NOVA also assists with administering the program. There is also a 

GCPI project coordinator who assists the program director. 

	 Linkages and Partnerships: GCPI has developed linkages with three local high schools, two 

local Workforce Investment Boards, and at least three employers. With help from GCPI, the 

high schools offer GIS courses on campus and allow students to dual-enroll in some GCPI 

courses. The program also has three employers that provide paid internships to students in the 

program and cover some tuition costs. Finally, the two local WIBs have informal agreements 

with GCPI to refer and cover tuition costs for qualified candidates to the program. 

	 Recruitment and Intake: GCPI recruits students through open houses, information sessions, 

college fairs and media advertisements. The program also holds a GIS career day at a partner 

campus, where both current and potential students can learn about educational and professional 

opportunities in the field. Although the two WIBs were also expected to make referrals and 

cover tuition for these students, only a few such referrals have been made thus far. 

	 Training Delivery: Currently, all but two of the courses required for certification are online, 

and these last two are also slated to go online at some point in the near future. None of the 

current online courses have any in-person requirements and all course material is available 

asynchronously. 

B-6 
 

Grantee: Ogden-Weber Applied Technical College (OWATC) 

Primary Service Area: Weber County, Utah 

TBL Initiative Funding: 500,000 

Industry/Sector: Information Technology (IT) 

Approximate Number to be Served by TBL Program: 300 

Program Summary 

The TBL grant is used to support the IT Certification program at OWATC, which provides 

training for students seeking industry-approved credentials in a range of IT arenas. The majority 

of TBL grant funds are being used to provide financial aid to IT students, and a smaller portion 

are being used for infrastructure improvements. The program’s goals are to support its student 

population, many of whom are unable to afford the cost of continued education, as well as to 

increase the quality and quantity of the local IT workforce. 

	 Contextual Factors: The IT sector is identified as one of four “high-growth” industries in 

Utah. Increasing the IT workforce is beneficial not only for the various technology-based 

companies in Weber County, but also for the manufacturing and aerospace industries, both of 

which were touted as the “main economic drivers” in Weber County. Local IT employers 

express challenges in recruiting workers from outside the region and therefore rely on 

OWATC to help build a local, appropriately-trained IT workforce. 

	 Experience with and Approach to TBL: TBL methods are not new to OWATC, whose IT 

certification program had been in place for several years prior to the TBL grant. However, 

OWATC currently only offers four online courses. The majority of OWATC students prefer 

to take courses in person and local employers also prefer in-person trainings, as they perceive 

them to be of higher quality than online learning. 

	 Planning and Design: The planning and design process for OWATC’s TBL program was 

primarily in-house, using input from instructors, counselors, OWATC’s financial aid and 

marketing offices, and local employers who already served on the IT program’s Employer 

Advisory Board. After an internal investigation into attrition rates revealed that financial 

hardship was a primary factor behind dropout rates, the design team decided to use grant 

funds to provide scholarships for students. 

	 Program Administration, Organization, and Leadership: OWATC’s TBL program is 

overseen by two people: the grants administrator, who takes care of processes and procedures 

(including report writing, administration of funds, and program monitoring), and the program 

director, who takes care of the faculty and resource needs of the program. An administrative 

assistant works with an IT program counselor to track student progress and to ensure that 

student needs are met. The program also has two primary instructors and an advisory 

B-7 
 

committee made up of employer advisors, community and faith-based partners, and a Utah 

Department of Workforce Services representative. 

	 Linkages and Partnerships: Program partnerships are informal in nature, and some 

partnerships, such as those with local employers and the Utah Department of Workforce 

Services (DWS) are stronger than others due to the school’s pre-existing relationship and 

history with the partnering organization. Partnerships include organizations that provide 

computers for student use (e.g. the local library system) and those that serve the program’s 

target populations (e.g. the DWS’ Custom Fit Program and community and faith-based 

organizations that serve unemployed populations.) The primary roles of these latter 

organizations are to market and serve as referral mechanisms into the IT program. 

	 Recruitment and Intake: OWATC relies primarily on its program partners for recruitment. 

The only requirement for admission is that students pass a computer literacy test in order to 

ensure that they have the baseline math and computer skills necessary to begin the program. 

Students who do not pass the literacy test may retake the exam after having completed courses 

designed to help them fill their knowledge gaps. 

	 Training Delivery: OWATC’s IT program is open entry/open exit and employs a blended 

approach to learning. Courses are asynchronous in nature but students do a majority of their 

work in the OWATC computer lab, in the presence of an instructor. Students are provided 

with guidelines for how long a course should take to complete and thus are able to work at 

their own pace but within reasonable limits. Most courses involve students reading from a 

textbook, then completing activities and taking tests via the LMS. This is also true of the 

online courses, the only difference being that assignments and tests can be completed online 

as opposed to in the lab setting. Hands-on training opportunities (e.g., computer or network 

building) are provided to supplement textbook learning. 

B-8 
 

Grantee: The Guidance Center (TGC) 

Primary Service Area: Wayne County, Michigan 

TBL Initiative Funding: $500,000 

Industry/Sector: Mental Health Direct Care 

Approximate Number to be Served: 1675 

Program Summary 

The Care and Training Supports (CATS) project is designed to expand access to training 

opportunities for direct care workers in Wayne County, MI. The program is aimed at increasing 

the number, skills, and abilities of mental health direct care workers in Wayne County and to 

increase their standing in the profession. CATS provides online training to complete Michigan 

training requirements for individuals who have just begun work in the field and experienced 

workers. 

	 Contextual Factors: In total, the current mental health workforce in Detroit-Wayne County is 

approximately 15,000, and about half of those are direct care workers. This portion of the 

workforce suffers from extremely high turnover rates due to inadequate preparation and 

ongoing training opportunities, as well as low pay. 

	 Experience with and Approach to TBL: Since its launch in 2008, the TGC’s Virtual Center 

of Excellence (VCE) has been providing online training opportunities for the mental health 

workforce. The CATS initiative is VCE’s newest program and specifically targets direct care 

workers in the mental health field. 

	 Planning and Design: TGC designed the CATS initiative by gathering and incorporating 

feedback from various stakeholders including employers, other training agencies, mental 

health service recipients, and mental health service providers. The grantee then developed a 

design committee comprised of mental health employment and training agency representatives 

who were responsible for determining course content and identifying instructors for the 

courses. 

	 Program Administration, Organization, and Leadership: The CATS initiative is operated 

by VCE, which is in turn overseen by TGC. CATS has a grant administrator, and VCE’s 

continuing education coordinator, customer support specialist, event planner for direct care 

initiatives and director all do some work for the CATS program. 

	 Linkages and Partnerships: TGC works closely with Detroit Wayne County Community 

Mental Health Agency, which has been its main funding source. Leaders from both 

organizations meet frequently to discuss trends and training needs in the mental healthcare 

workforce. TGC also works closely with the three other Wayne County mental health direct 

care training and employment agencies. Representatives from each of these agencies are 

B-9 
responsible for advising TGC on what courses to include as a part of the CATS program and 

what content is necessary within those courses. 

	 Recruitment and Intake: CATS recruits by sending out emails with class announcements to 

VCE’s registered members as well as through emails sent out by other Wayne County direct 

care training and employment agencies. The program’s most successful recruitment strategy 

has been the attachment of informational fliers to employee paychecks. Other than working in 

direct care in Wayne County, there are no eligibility requirements for registering with VCE 

and accessing the training resources. 

	 Training Delivery: Four courses are currently available online, and several more are in the 

editing process. The courses are online videos of lectures or presentations on a given topic, 

combined with quizzes to test content retention. Courses range from 30 minutes to three hours 

to complete. When new courses are being filmed, participants can also attend if they prefer. 

By the end of 2009, the program also expected to be able to provide users with access to the 

College of Direct Support’s online training courses, including those leading to the Direct 

Support Provider certification. 

B-10 
 

 

Grantee: The University of Colorado, Denver (UCD) 

Primary Service Area: Nationwide 

TBL Initiative Funding: $502,696 

Industry/Sector: Energy Management 

Approximate Number to be Served: 192 

Program Summary 

The Global Energy Management (GEM) program at UCD is focused on providing experienced 

professionals with training to assume mid-to-upper level management positions in the energy 

industry. The GEM program offers a Master of Science degree developed out of close 

collaboration between UCD’s business school and Denver-area energy companies. The 18-

month program has a blended learning model, which includes a four-day in-person component 

each quarter, along with online instruction via a LMS and Adobe Connect. While a majority of 

students are from the Denver area, GEM also has students from across the country and some 

international students as well. 

	 Contextual Factors: The Denver area is a logical location for the GEM program because the 

area has emerged in recent years as a major hub for both domestic and international energy 

companies. Until recently, the energy industry—both locally and worldwide—experienced 

annual growth of around 30 percent. In addition, many senior managers in the industry are 

expected to retire soon, which is expected lead to high demand for new managers. 

	 Experience with and Approach to TBL: UCD has been offering online courses since 1994. 

The blended, online/in-person nature of the GEM program makes it unique when compared to 

other online classes at the university. While the program is original in many ways, a number 

of important components for the TBL program (the Blackboard LMS, Adobe Connect 

availability, etc.) were already in place prior to the development of the GEM program. 

	 Planning and Design: GEM was conceived two and a half years before the TBL grant, when 

local energy executives requested development of a graduate management program to provide 

students with the unique skills necessary for energy management. UCD worked closely with 

these executives to develop the GEM program. 

	 Program Administration, Organization, and Leadership: Housed within the UCD 

Business School, the GEM program has seven full-time dedicated staff members in addition to 

contracted faculty. GEM also has a voluntary Advisory Council consisting primarily of energy 

industry representatives. 

	 Linkages and Partnerships: GEM works closely with a number of local energy companies, 

which provide input on numerous issues, including curriculum design and faculty recruitment. 

These partners also provide financial support to GEM, both directly and in the form of 

covering tuition for their workers who are enrolled in the program. 

B-11 
	 Recruitment and Intake: Recruitment primarily occurs via the program’s website and 

presentations at energy and graduate school career fairs. GEM applicants have to complete a 

standard UCD Business School application, but are ranked for admission based on years of 

experience in the energy industry, whether they have an undergraduate energy degree, and 

professional references. 

	 Training Delivery: At the beginning of each quarter all GEM students must attend an 

intensive four-day in-person session, which includes both an orientation and delivery of course 

content. For the remainder of the quarter all coursework is conducted online. Program 

instructors pre-record weekly lectures to coincide with assigned readings and mandatory 

responses to questions posted on the course’s discussion board. Each course also includes a 

group project component, with students collaborating and communicating through Adobe 

Connect. Similar to a traditional graduate program, all courses conclude with a final project 

and/or exam. 

B-12