1 / 26

Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning

Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning. Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). SREB – DECEMBER 7, 2005 Wendy Gilbert, Director, MarylandOnline.

taariq
Download Presentation

Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) SREB – DECEMBER 7, 2005 Wendy Gilbert, Director, MarylandOnline

  2. Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning • Grantor: FIPSE • Grant period: 9/03 – 8/06 • Award: $509,177 • Grantee: MarylandOnline • Statewide consortium: 14 community colleges, 5 senior institutions • http://www.QualityMatters.org

  3. FIPSE Interested Because … • Quality assurance of online courses is important • Voluntaryinter-institutional assurance has never been done before • This can serve as a national model Quality Matters!

  4. MarylandOnline • Statewide consortium dedicated to support of distance learning in Maryland • Partners: 15 community colleges, 5 senior institutions • Goals • Web gateway for online higher education in Maryland • Faculty training • Facilitate online course and program sharing • Facilitate collaborations among member institutions • Provide statewide leadership in distance education

  5. Course Meets Quality Expectations Course Revision Course Peer Review Process • Institutions • CAO’s • AR’s Faculty Course Developers National Standards & Research Literature Course Rubric Faculty Reviewers Training Peer Course Review Feedback Instructional Designers

  6. For Our Purposes, Quality Is… • More than average; more than “good enough” • An attempt to capture what’s expected in an effective online course at about an 85% level • Based on research and widely accepted standards 85 %

  7. What this process is NOT • Not about an individual instructor (it’s about the course design) • Not about faculty evaluation (it’s about course quality) • Not a win/lose, pass/fail test (it’s about a continuous improvement process in a supportive environment)

  8. A QM review is Ongoing Focus: course design Outcome: course improvement Voluntary, non-threatening Team approach that includes the faculty member Full disclosure to faculty A faculty evaluation is Single point in time Focus: delivery Outcome: decision on performance for promotion/tenure Win/lose situation Confidential/secretive QM Collegial Review vs. Evaluation

  9. Strengths QM is grounded in: • research literature • national standards of best practice • instructional design principles

  10. What’s In It For Institutions … • Stronger reaccreditation package • Validation by external bodies • Elevation of QA as a priority activity • Access to a sustainable, replicable, scalable QA process • Informed online course training & practices • Professional development activities • Increased course & program sharing (MOL)

  11. What’s In It For Faculty … • Improvement of online course • Access to instructional design support • QA validation by external peers • Expansion of professional community • Opportunity to review other courses & gain new ideas for own course • Useful tool for annual evaluations, promotion applications, professional development plan/requirements • $150 for each completed peer course review

  12. Peer Reviewers • Selection Factors • Prior training to teach online • Extent of online teaching experience • Currency of online teaching experience • Content area • Requirements • Sign MOU • Attend peer reviewer/rubric training

  13. Review Teams • 3 Faculty Peer Reviewers: • 1 from home institution, 2 from others • 1 from same discipline, 2 from others • mix of CC & 4 yr schools • mix of large & small schools • mix of public & private schools • Faculty Course Developer • access to rubric prior to review • involved in pre-review discussions • consulted during review

  14. Rubric Training Focus on: • Application of rubric to course review • Interpretation of review elements • Providing constructive feedback • Competency-based

  15. 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

  16. The Rubric • Eight standards: • Course Overview and Introduction • Learning Objectives • Assessment and Measurement • Resources and Materials • Learner Interaction • Course Technology • Learner Support • ADA Compliance Key components must align.

  17. Rubric Features • Living document • Web-based • Automated compiling of team report • Annotations • Examples

  18. Rubric Scoring • Team of three reviewers • One score per standard based on majority • Two criteria to meet quality expectations: • “Yes” to all 14 Essential Standards • Receive at least a total of 68 points

  19. Course Reviews • To date, 50% meet expectations on initial review • Instructional design support provided • Identified 11 common areas for improvement • Target for faculty training & course development/revision: • interaction • ADA • learning objectives stated at the module/unit level • self-check/practice activities with feedback • links to school's academic supports • instructor's self-introduction • netiquette expectations

  20. National Participation Scope: • individuals from 70 different institutions (including the 19 MOL schools) in 14 different states • 300+ faculty trained to review online courses using the rubric Uses of QM System: • online course development, review, and revision, faculty training, formation of distance learning policies & steering committees, institutional reaccreditation packages

  21. Awards - 2005 • WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award • USDLA 21st Century Best Practice Award • Maryland Distance Learning Association (MDLA) Best Program Award

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

  23. Advisory Board • Middle States Commission on Higher Education • MD Higher Education Commission • MD State Department of Education • Penn State University • US Naval Academy • Miami University (OH) • South Dakota Electronic University Consortium • Minnesota Online • Northern Virginia Community College • Bucks County Community College (PA) • Defense Acquisition University • Education Direct • Kaplan College

  24. Lessons Learned • QM is part of an on-going process; course review is not the first step in this process • Must address and minimize faculty anxiety prior to review • Need for faculty training at individual institutions during course design and prior to implementing a review process • Need for pre-course development checklist tied to rubric • Approach to the Rubric and the Review process needs to be holistic

  25. Looking Ahead • Adapt rubric & process for: • hybrid, f2f, ConEd, commercial, professional training • specific institutional needs • Promote the integration of the QM process within institutions • Explore the “QM Institution” concept • Assess the impact on student learning through research projects • Annual rubric update cycle • Diversify training program • Sustainability plan • Develop partnerships & business opportunities

  26. More Information www.QualityMatters.org QM Project Co-Directors • Chris Sax csax@umuc.edu • Mary Wells mwells@pgcc.edu MarylandOnline Director • Wendy Gilbert gilbertwa@comcast.net Project Coordinator • Kay Kane kkane@pgcc.edu

More Related