quality matters n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Quality Matters PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Quality Matters

Quality Matters

318 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Quality Matters

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality Matters Dr. Chris Patti and Dr. John R. Kallis California University of Pennsylvania April 09, 2009

  2. Background • Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance • in Online Learning • faculty-centered, peer review process • designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components

  3. Background • Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance • QM is a continuous improvement model • for assuring the quality of online courses through a faculty review process • Sponsored by MarylandOnline, Inc • Originating from a FIPSE grant Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

  4. Review Process

  5. Process • 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 %

  6. Process What this process is NOT • Not about an individual instructor • it’s about the course • Not about faculty evaluation • it’s about course quality • Not about “win/lose” or “pass/fail” • it’s about continuous improvement in a supportive environment

  7. Process • Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance • California University of Pennsylvania • One of twenty institutions across the state of Pennsylvania that are part of the QM network. • A total of 42 states and Canada are involved with this quality assurance. • Over 4000 faculty and staff trained as QM Reviewers. •

  8. Process • When should a course be submitted for review? …reviews are designed for mature online courses • Review the checklist • Click the above URL for the review checklist

  9. Process A QM Review is • Ongoing • Focus: course design • Outcome: course improvement • Non-threatening • Team approach that includes faculty • 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

  10. 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

  11. Distinguish Between Design vs. Delivery Example:Discussion Board Design:A discussion boardhas been planned into the course; students have been told how they should participate and how they can expect the faculty to participate. Delivery:How often the faculty member actually participates in the discussion; what the faculty member actually says to students.

  12. FactorsAffecting 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

  13. Criteria • Peer Course Review Rubric …focuses on the course design and not on course delivery or the course academic content. • Eight Standards • Course Overview. • Learning Objectives • Assessment and Measurement • Resources and Materials.

  14. Criteria • Peer Course Review Rubric • Eight Standards • Learners Engagement. • Course Technology. • Learner Support. • Accessibility. 2008 -2010 Rubric standards with assigned point values. … continued on the following slides

  15. Course Learning Objectives (II) Learner Interactions & Activities (V) Resources, Materials (IV) & Technology (VI) Assessment and Measurement (III) Criteria Key Sections that Must Align

  16. Criteria Key Standards that Must Align • Objectives • Standard II.1: Measurable outcomes • Standard II.2: The module/unit learning objectives describe outcomes that are measurable and consistent with the course-level objectives. • Assessment and Measurement • Standard III.1: Measures objectives; consistent with learning activities • Learner Interactions and Activities • Standard V.1: Help students achieve the objectives • Course Materials • Standard IV.1: Deep and comprehensive enough for students to achieve the objective • Course Technology • Standard VI.1: Tools and media support the objectives

  17. Criteria • Peer Course Review Rubric • Rubric review standards • Continued on the following slides

  18. Results • The QM seal demonstrates to our University and our students that our online courses are quality. • …sense of satisfaction and accomplishment knowing that your course has met the eight standards.

  19. Discussion • What steps are used in the design of your course that helps students have a clear understanding on your course expectations? • How do you help the novice to online courses to easily navigate through your course? • How are the course learning objectives defined and explained so that the student learning is maximized?

  20. Discussion • Are your learning objectives connected to your assessment instruments correlated and the grading policy is clearly stated? • What ways do you engage your learners in an online environment? • Is your course accessible to all students and in what ways?

  21. Discussion • What questions do you have about following the QM process? • The QM rubric is designed to focus on course design not delivery. • How do you see your role in the process to assist the review team provide you with specific feedback on your course design?

  22. Discussion • What advantages do you see to using the standards identified in the QM rubric for the design of your online course? • The ultimate benefit to QM is to promote student learning. Reflecting on your own online course(s), • what areas would be helpful to describe in more detail ways to promote student learning?

  23. The End Dr. Chris Patti and Dr. John R. Kallis California University of Pennsylvania April 09, 2009 Presentation material referenced from Quality Matters published materials and website