Professional Education Organization International

Board of Directors

Minutes for July 2004 online Board meeting

July 2004 online board meeting had to consider the following
eight resolutions:
2005-07 #1 approval of PEOI's 2004 Annual Report and Financial Statements
2005-07 #2 permission for 2005 fund raising
2005-07 #3 appointment of Kathleen Motl as board member
2005-07 #4 appointment of Sachin Paranjape as board member
2005-07 #5 appointment of Nikhil Gadia as board member
2005-07 #6 appointment of Kimberly Louis as board member
2005-07 #7 resignation of Lambert as board member
2005-07 #8 removal for absences of carol Hosay as board member

Vote bulletins were distributed in early July with the agenda for the board meeting.

Vote bulletins were returned by eight board members, with the following results:

#1 passed with eight yes, unanimous
#2 passed with eight yes, unanimous
#3 passed with eight yes, unanimous
#4 passed with seven yes and one no
#5 passed with seven yes and one no
#6 passed with eight yes, unanimous
#7 passed with seven yes and one abstension
#8 passed with sx yes, one no and one abstension

Discussion pertaining to item #1

The discussion was preempted by Maree Weir's very critical
comment pertaining to the general appearance of PEOI's web
site and indirectly to item #1. It is reporduced in its
entirety below in case you did not receive it.

Maree Weir:

I apologise for my lack of action in the past six months - personal
circumstances dictated that I had little time to offer.

Related to your questions re: information in the annual report, I would
like to offer a couple of observations on the PEOI website in general,
and gauge whether my experience is also had by others.

1. The font and layout of the home page of the website is not
inviting - people may not be going past this.
2. The navigation is not particularly intuitive - even when I have
a fair idea of what I'm looking for (as in the annual report referred to
below) I cannot locate it. There seems to be a little disconnect
between sections, indicating each section being built in isolation.
3. There is too much text - ie there is a lot of information and
the really important and attention-grabbing pieces are thereby lost in
the volume of words.

John, I acknowledge the sustained hard work which you and others have
put into this organization thus far - I am not trying to in any way
denigrate what has gone before, but to make suggestions for improvement.
I am always a little confused as to what I am really looking at with
PEOI - who sits where, what is being done, who is available to receive
feedback - and this is probably entirely due to my inaction and
consequent unfamiliarity. However, I am very conversant with websites
and discussion boards, have studied via online mode, and am currently
responsible for the operation of a large LMS, so have a little
experience in the area in general.

Is there an organization chart available somewhere?
I believe the processes for how PEOI arrives at its offerings would be
of interest, it's a matter of how it is presented. At present, due to
the volume of text (as referred to above) I do believe it would be
deadly boring in text form. Flow charts, or pictorial representations
would be a good start.

We really have four very distinct client groups that the website markets
to:

1. Learners (catered for)
2. Volunteers
3. Partner organizations (catered for?)
4. Financiers (catered for?)

Having read about the platform, and keeping in mind your questions below
regarding engaging volunteers and the course development process, I
believe we need to consolidate a volunteer section with a page structure
which may have more pages, but contain less text information on each
(perhaps linking to downloadable docs where necessary) something like:

1. Who we are - mission vision etc
2. How we work - where the courses and people come from - maybe
organized by country and/or language to give people some engagement.
3. Who is involved with what - past/current/future. volunteer
stories, successes etc

If this is the experience of others, how can I help, what is required
from me?
===============================================================

Comments pertaining to whether mechanization discourages volunteers:

Nazim Syed:
As a volunteer, what would people look forward to during volunteering.
Contribution, development, interaction, satisfaction and achivement. Does
our course development system meet the basic elements of volunteering.
Though the course development system is productive and good, it still need
certain fleaxibility to strech and shrink to satisfy and motivate
volunteers. The best thing that can be done about it to obtain feedback of
most active voulunteers to guide us to adopt any need changes.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mihai Carmihai:
It is possible that the new system has distanced volunteers… Maybe a
direct interaction inside working groups will be useful – i.e. a
direct contact between people. What do you think about? I imagine we can
have some “good practice” in the field.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Palmer:
I cannot speak for individual volunteers other than myself. I find the
website itself difficult to navigate. It is not as intuitive as it
could be. In the absence of an alternative interface, some downloadable
navigation tips or a full user document should be available. I note
www.skoool.ie <http://www.skoool.ie/> as one alternative example and I
know that many corporates have their own internal structures from which
ideas could be drawn for enhancements ("Disney University" for example).
I believe that the concept of mechanisation is an essential component to
a scalable delivery model. With a standard template and delivery
mechanism, content can be ported readily to PEOI. A commercially
available platform may not be suitable, however the commercially
available building blocks in combination with modified development from
others is certainly viable.

With regard to your comment about volunteers working more directly with
students, I would point to the Open University's model which uses online
collaboration for distance learning. They use a Canadian tool called
FirstClass for online discussion forums which enable students to
interact with one another and provide a tutor to monitor each forum. A
facility like this could also be useful for collaboration in course
development and greater interaction among volunteers and board members
could lead to higher energy levels and accelerated development. (I'm
feeling a bit alone at present!). Commerical products such as
FirstClass or eRoom might be negotiated on a free-of-charge basis under
the vendor's "social responsibility" or marketing programmes.
-------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Barden:
EASE OF USE IS ALWAYS A FACTOR IN THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP COURSES WITH A
VOLUNTEER BASE. FOR ME, I DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITH THE
CURRENT SYSTEM; HOWEVER, IF IT APPEARS THAT MANY VOLUNTEERS ARE
EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY AND FRUSTRATION WITH THE SYSTEM, PERHAPS AN
ALTERNATIVE SHOULD BE EXPLORED.
===============================================================

Pertaining to question on whether mechanization is wrong message in
annual report:

Nazim Syed:
I dont think, it will impact donors decision. The report is good but
exaustive and i think that we need to make it more reader friendly.
-------------------------------------------------------

Mihai Carmihai:

Regarding the website: I think that the website isn&#8217;t &#8220;user
&#8211; friendly&#8221;, i.e. for a new user it is not very easy to
navigate&#8230; Moreover, the course contents must be more interactive, in
accordance with the eLearning general rules. I don&#8217;t believe that
(potential) donors will view PEOI's &#8220;mechanization&#8221;
negatively, but I think that we must introduce some
&#8220;structures&#8221; in order to obtain feed-back from stakeholders.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Palmer:
On the contrary, I believe the donor community will embrace the concepts
presented as being in line with sustainable development objectives, and
provides the basis for monitoring and evaluation. Absence of process
and controls would be indicative of poor standards and ad-hoc delivery.
Some of the report detail may be a bit deep for the donors but it
certainly forms some of the user document referred to above.
-------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Barden:
FROM MY OBSERVATION OF OTHER WEBSITES THAT OFFER ON-LINE COURSES, IT SEEMS
TO BE EVENLY SPLIT BETWEEN ACTIVELY INTERACTIVE COURSES AND "MECHANIZED"
COURSES. DUE TO THE VARIETY OF STUDENTS PEOI IS SEEKING TO ADDRESS, THE
"MECHANIZED" SYSTEM HAS SOME VALUE, ESPECIALLY IF STUDENT NUMBERS BECOME
VERY LARGE.

I DON'T THINK THIS WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT SUPPORT OF POTENTIAL DONORS.

MAYBE GIVING AN OPTION FOR MORE INTERACTION COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR
STUDENTS AND VOLUNTEERS TO ENGAGE IN IF THEY WANT THAT TYPE OF
EXPERIENCE.
===============================================================
Discussion pertaining to financials in annual report:
No one had a problem with them.
===============================================================

The large number of missing votes in this board meeting suggests that
many board members experienced difficulties logging in and finding
the darft of PEOI's 2004 Annual Report, similar to those of Maree
Weir.

Present at and participating in July online board meeting:

1-Kenneth Barden
2-Mihai D Caramihai
3-Johannes M. Glas
4-Cauvery Sachdeva Handa
5-Carol Law
6-Michael Palmer
7-John Petroff
8-Nazim Syed

Participated in the July online meeting but did not send in votes

9-Peter Short
10-Maree Weir
11-Peter Wells

Missing participation and voting:
1- Rinku Bhattacharya, first absence
2- Ndeye Diagne, first absence
3- Jeanne M. Henry, first absence
4- Vivek Jamwal, first absence
5- ANOHAR JOHN, second absence
6- nizam MRYAN, first absence
7- Poi Kee (Frederick) Low, first absence
8- Guilherme Rodrigues, first absence
9- Romina Sengara, second absence
10- "Stacy Speidel" , second absence

 

Next board meeting in November 2005.

Prepared by John Petroff
August 9, 2005

 

1- MANNAVA RAMANA BABU <cgchyd@ap.nic.in>
2- Kenneth Barden <kenneth_barden@yahoo.com>
3- Rinku Bhattacharya <RinkuB@aol.com>
4- Mihai D Caramihai <m.caramihai@ieee.org>
5- Ndeye Diagne <diagnendeye@hotmail.com>
6- Johannes M. Glas <jmglas@hotmail.com>
7- Cauvery Sachdeva Handa <kaveri_princess@hotmail.com>
8- Jeanne M. Henry <jmhc_co@att.net>
9- Vivek Jamwal <vjammy@yahoo.com>
10- ANOHAR JOHN <ANOHARJOHN@LYCOS.COM>
11- Carol Law <carol.law@rogers.com>
12- Poi Kee (Frederick) Low <fred@starhub.net.sg>
13- nizam MRYAN <nsmryan@dohms.gov.ae>
14- Michael Palmer <mp043@hotmail.com>
15- John Petroff <petroff@pronetisp.net>
16- Guilherme Rodrigues <guirodrigues2003@yahoo.com.br>
17- Romina Sengara <romina_sengara@hotmail.com>
18- Peter Short <acilfesp@connect.com.fj>
19- "Stacy Speidel" <stacyspeidel1@yahoo.com>
20- Nazim Syed <nazimsyed786@hotpop.com>
21- Maree Weir <weirdohs@ozemail.com.au>
22- Peter Wells <p.wells@cepes.ro>