The Sloan-C Quality Framework

1. The Sloan-C Quality Framework DoD ISD CoP Meeting September 7, 2006 John Sener Sener Learning Services

2. Outline of Presentation • What is Sloan-C? • The Sloan-C Quality Framework • Applying the Sloan-C Framework to Support Quality Improvement

3. Sloan-C Purpose • Sloan-C = The Sloan Consortium“ • More than 1000 member institutions • Mostly higher education, but not entirely • Dedicated to making education “a part of everyday life” • Focuses on online learning as the way to enable greater access to quality education • Accessible and affordable for anyone, anywhere, at any time, in a wide variety of disciplines” • Helps learning organizations continually improve quality, scale, and breadth of their online programs, according to their own distinctive missions • Online also = “blended”

4. Over 8000 enrollments in 1345 courses offered At 158 institutions

5. Online Enrollments inHigher Education • Over 2.5 million students took at least one online course in Fall 2005 • Approximately 11% of all students in accredited institutions take online courses • Online growth is steady: 400,000/year

6. The Annual Survey www.sloan-c.org

7. Sloan-C Quality Framework • Learning Effectiveness • Cost Effectiveness • Access • Faculty Satisfaction • Student Satisfaction

8. “Pillarology”: Rationale • Access: foundational – ‘education part of everyday life’ • Learning Effectiveness: self-evident; focus on instructor-led OL & I-S/S-S interaction • Cost Effectiveness: demonstrable value proposition + institutional commitment • Student Satisfaction: key success indicator • Faculty Satisfaction: HEIs are faculty-centered; the “I” in ILT is important in this framework • Overarching rationale: legitimization; evolving to quality assurance (and beyond?)

9. Sloan-C Pillars & Kirkpatrick/Phillips Scale

10. Sloan-C Pillars Strengths: Focuses on instructors as participants Focuses on access as a key issue Weaknesses: Focuses on outcomes internal to the process Kirkpatrick/Phillips Scale Strengths: Focuses on post-delivery outcomes (L3, L4) Weaknesses: Ignores instructors as participants Ignores access as an issue S-CP vs. K/P S:Relative Strengths and Weaknesses

11. Sloan-C Pillars: (Mis)Matches • Sloan-C has specific ideas on instantiation • WBT vs. AILOL: Instructor-led (or not) • Higher education vs. corporate training: • Students are consumers and learners • Support services (more) important • Instructor more central • General quality framework is adaptable • Has been applied to blended, “traditional” programs in higher education

12. The CEIT Model • Comparisons = can be useful to learn about how OL works • Effectiveness = moves the focus toward evaluating OL on its own terms • Quality Improvement = how to make it better (processes and interventions) • Transformation = holistic, institutional effects

13. Evaluation Questions for Each Stage

14. CEIT and Other Conceptual Frames

15. Sample Applications of Sloan-C Pillars, CEIT • Bioterrorism course evaluation (Vignare and Sener 2005): CEI but no T; implicit pillars (A, LE, SS, FS, CE) • Course evaluation of online program for planners (.ff)

16. Sample Application: Evaluation of Online Program for Planners • Cross-references Sloan-C Pillars, CEIT model • Evaluation currently in progress • Key evaluation questions (Comparison) • How does the content compare between OL and classroom delivery modes? (O) Among other delivery modes? (O) • Which delivery mode(s) is/are the most cost effective? (CE) Produces the best learning outcomes? (LE) Generates the most student satisfaction? (SS) • (How/Why) do enrollees perceive that one delivery method provides better access? (A) Is a more effective learning experience? (LE) Is more affordable/better value for the cost? (CE) Is a more satisfying learning experience? (SS) • Why do enrollees select one delivery method over another? (O)

17. Sample Application: Evaluation of Online Program for Planners • Key evaluation questions (Effectiveness) • Does this program provide access effectively? What elements of the program enable effective access? How could the program be changed to improve access? (A) [ibid. for CE] • Do participants improve in understanding of the legal framework of planning and zoning and knowledge of best practices in growth management? What elements of the program enable effective learning? How could the program be changed to improve learning? (LE) • Are participants satisfied with this learning experience? What program elements support student satisfaction? How could the program be changed to improve SS? (SS) • Is the Master Exam effective for measuring learning? (O) • Are members of the target market aware of the availability of the program?  (O) • What marketing methods produce the best ROI? (CE) • Does enrollment proceed at expected levels? If not, why not? (A, O)

18. Sample Application: Evaluation of Online Program for Planners • Key evaluation questions (Quality Improvement) • What changes have been made to the f2f program as the result of the development of online (& hybrid) modules? (P) • Why were these changes made (intended outcomes)? (P) • Which program changes have (not) resulted in improvements? Why (not)? What obstacles are there to making improvements? What strategies have been identified for overcoming these obstacles? (O) • How has offering the program in additional delivery modes improved: • - Access to the program? (A) • - Participant learning? (LE) • - Cost effectiveness? (CE) • - Student satisfaction? (SS) • How has the program enhanced planners’ knowledge and use of land use policy, information, tools, and practices? Do local planning commissions function differently (better) subsequent to training? (LE, O)

19. Sample Application: Evaluation of Online Program for Planners • Key evaluation questions (Transformation) • How has the program resulted in: • - An increasing number of [state] regions pursuing growth-focused planning on a regional scale under the leadership of business organizations? (O) • - Increased support by [state] county planning offices for multijurisdictional planning endeavors?  (O) • - Local policymakers developing reforms in land-use policy and land-protection programs as planned? (O) • How has offering the program in additional delivery modes changed the way that the provider views online learning as a viable delivery mode? The developer? Other relevant stakeholders? (P) • How has offering the program in additional delivery modes changed how current and/or prospective learners view online learning offerings in terms of effectiveness and satisfaction? (LE, SS)

20. Questions? • More info on Sloan-C Pillars: • http://www.sloan-c.org/effective/framework.asp • Sener Learning Services: www.senerlearning.com • E-mail contact: jsener@senerlearning.com Visit: http://www.sloan-c.org