quality matters
DESCRIPTION
Quality Matters. Dr. Chris Patti and Dr. John R. Kallis California University of Pennsylvania April 09, 2009. Background. Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning faculty-centered, peer review process - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Quality MattersDr. Chris Patti and Dr. John R. Kallis
California University of PennsylvaniaApril 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
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
ProcessWhat 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.• www.qualitymatters.org
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
http://qminstitute.org/home/Public%20Library/Course%20Review%20Information/Preparing%20for%20a%20QM%20Course%20Review.pdf
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 board has 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
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
13
Criteria
• Peer Course Review Rubric…focuses on the course design and not on course delivery or the
course academic content.
– Eight Standards1. Course Overview.2. Learning Objectives3. Assessment and Measurement4. Resources and Materials.
14
Criteria
• Peer Course Review Rubric
– Eight Standards5. Learners Engagement.6. Course Technology.7. Learner Support.8. Accessibility.
2008 -2010 Rubric standards with assigned point values.… continued on the following slides
17
Criteria
Course Learning Objectives (II)
Resources, Materials (IV) & Technology (VI)
Assessment and Measurement (III)
Learner Interactions & Activities (V)
Key Sections that Must Align
18
CriteriaKey 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
19
Criteria
• Peer Course Review Rubric– Rubric review standards
• Continued on the following slides
29
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.
30
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?
31
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?
32
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?
33
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?