Using Quality MattersTM To Improve Your Online Course

1
Using Quality MattersTM To Improve Your Online
Course

• Sponsored in part by MarylandOnline and
• the U.S. Dept. Education Fund for the Improvement
  of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)

2

• When viewing these slides use the
• PowerPoint Notes view to read the
• narrative that accompanies each slide.

3
Quality Matters

• Quality does matter to
• students
• faculty
• administrators
• institutions
• consortia
• accrediting agencies
• legislators
• tax-payers

• How do we
• identify recognize it?
• motivate instill it?
• assess measure it?
• insure it?
• assure it?

4
Quality Matters Inter-Institutional Quality
Assurance in Online Learning

• Grantor FIPSE
• Grant period 9/03 8/06
• Award 509,177
• Grantee Maryland Online
• www.QualityMatters.org

5
MarylandOnline

• Voluntary statewide inter-segmental consortium
  15 community colleges, 5 senior institutions
• Dedicated to support of distance learning in
  Maryland
• Goals
• Faculty training
• Sharing of seats in online courses
• Facilitate collaborations among members
• Provide statewide leadership in distance education

6
FIPSE Interested Because

• Quality assurance of online courses is important
• Voluntary, inter-institutional assurance has
  never been done before
• This can serve as a national model

Quality Matters!
7
Factors Affecting Course Quality

• Course design QM REVIEWS THIS
• Course delivery (i.e. teaching, faculty
  performance)
• Course content
• Course management system
• Institutional infrastructure
• Faculty training and readiness
• Student engagement and readiness

8
Quality Matters Course Peer Review Process
Faculty Course Developers
Institutions
National Standards Research Literature
Course
Rubric
Faculty Reviewers
Training
Peer Course Review
Feedback
Instructional Designers
9
Major Themes

• develop inter-institutional consensus on criteria
  process for online course QA
• assure improve course quality
• positively impact student learning
• faculty-centered activities
• faculty training professional development
• foster sharing of materials and expertise
• promote voluntary participation and adoption
• ensure institutional autonomy
• replicable, reliable, and scalable processes

10
Underlying Principles of QM

• The QM toolset and process are
• based in national standards of best practice, the
  research literature and instructional design
  principles
• designed to promote student learning
• integral to a continuous quality improvement
  process
• part of a faculty-driven, peer review process
• Course does not have to be perfect but better
  than just good enough. (Standards met at about
  85 level or better.)

11
For Our Purposes, Quality Is

• More than average more than good enough
• An attempt to capture whats expected in an
  effective online course at about an 85 level
• Based on research and widely accepted standards

85
12
Underlying Principles of QM

• Process designed to ensure all reviewed courses
  will eventually meet expectations
• Review team must include an external peer
  reviewer
• Course faculty or instructor considered part of
  the review team
• Collegial review process, not an evaluation
  process

13
What this process is NOT

• Not about an individual instructor
• (its about the course design)
• Not about faculty evaluation
• (its about course quality)
• Not about win/lose or pass/fail
• (its about continuous improvement in a
  collegial supportive environment)

14
Design vs. Delivery
The faculty member is integral to both design
and delivery.
Course Design is the forethought and planning
that a faculty member puts into the course.
Course Delivery is the actual teaching of the
course, the implementation of the design.
QM is about DESIGN - not delivery or faculty
performance
15
Distinguish Between Design vs. Delivery
Example Discussion Board
Design A discussion board has been planned
into the course students have been told how they
should participate and how they can expect the
faculty to participate.
DeliveryHow often the faculty member actually
participates in the discussion what the faculty
member actually says to students.
16
Whats In It For Institutions

• External validation
• Strengthen accreditation package
• Raise QA as a priority activity
• Access to a sustainable, replicable, scalable QA
  process
• Inform online course training practices
• Provide professional development activities

17
Whats In It For Faculty

• Improve online courses
• External quality assurance
• Expand professional community
• Review other courses and gain new ideas for own
  course
• Participation useful for professional development
  plan and portfolio
• Peer Reviewers receive 150 for each completed
  review

18
QM in Transition

• 2003 August 2006
• QM project funded by FIPSE grant money
• materials and some services freely available
• August 2006 and beyond
• QM project funded by MarylandOnline
• Some limited materials will be freely available
• Other materials available to individuals and
  institutions at nominal fees
• Institutional membership affords full access to
  materials and services

19
The Rubric

• Based in
• research literature
• nationally recognized standards of best practice
• instructional design principles
• Used by review teams to
• assess course quality in 8 key areas (40 review
  elements)
• provide feedback to faculty course developer
• provide guidance to instructional design support
  team

20
The Rubric

• Eight standards
• Course Overview and Introduction
• Learning Objectives
• Assessment and Measurement
• Resources and Materials
• Learner Interaction
• Course Technology
• Learner Support
• Accessibility

Key components must align.
21
Rubric Features

• Living document
• Web-based
• Automated compiling of team report
• Annotations
• Examples

22
Rubric Scoring
Standards Points Relative Value
14 3 Essential
12 2 Very Important
14 1 Important
TOTALS
40 80

• Team of three (3) reviewers
• One score per standard based on team majority
• Assigned point value not sliding scale

23
To Meet Expectations

• A course must achieve
• Yes on all 14 of the 3-point essential
  standards.
• A minimum of 68 out of 80 points

68/80 85
24
2006-2007 Rubric

• Rubric designed for application to fully online
  and hybrid/blended courses
• Same set of standards apply to both
• How we achieve the standards may differ
• For hybrids, focus on pedagogical integration of
  online and F2F components

25
Scope of QM

• Involved individuals programs from 160
  institutions in 28 states
• Trained 694 individuals from 154 different
  institutions in 28 states to use the rubric
• Reviewed 111 courses from 29 different
  institutions (18 MD institutions, 11 institutions
  in 5 states outside MD)

26
External Partners
Advisory Board

• Kentucky Virtual University (KYVU)
• Sloan Consortium
• Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)
• Western Cooperative for Education
  Telecommunications (WCET)
• Towson University (MD)
• Michigan Virtual Community College Consortium
• Portland Community College (OR)
• Florida Community College of Jacksonville (FL)
• Raritan Valley Community College (NJ)

• Middle States Comm on Higher Ed
• MD Higher Education Commission
• MD State Department of Education
• Penn State University
• Minnesota Online
• Defense Acquisition University
• US Naval Academy
• Miami University (OH)
• South Dakota Electronic Univ Const
• Northern Virginia CC

27
Adaptations of QM System

• Guidelines for initial online course development
• Basis for the development of fully online
  programs
• Quality assurance of existing courses
• Use of QM rubric as is addition of
  institutional-specific criteria adaptation to
  institutional needs
• Ongoing faculty professional development

28
Adaptations of QM System

• Quality benchmarking activities
• Raise awareness, interest, support for online
  curricula
• Institutional re-accreditation packages
• Strategic planning formation of distance
  learning policies steering committees
• Familiarity with QM as a hiring factor

29
Awards - 2005

• WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award, November
  2005.
• USDLA 21st Century Best Practice Award,October
  2005.
• Maryland Distance Learning Association (MDLA)
  Best Program Award,March 2005.

30
More Information

• www.QualityMatters.org
• Info_at_QualityMatters.org