1 / 28

Why Quality Matters:  Strategies for Designing Quality e-Learning Environments

Why Quality Matters:  Strategies for Designing Quality e-Learning Environments. Dr. Teresa Franklin Professor, Instructional Technology Department of Educational Studies Ohio University, Athens, OH USA November 2013. I can just post video . Content does not change.

arista
Download Presentation

Why Quality Matters:  Strategies for Designing Quality e-Learning Environments

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. Why Quality Matters:  Strategies for Designing Quality e-Learning Environments Dr. Teresa Franklin Professor, Instructional Technology Department of Educational Studies Ohio University, Athens, OH USA November 2013

  2. I can just post video. Content does not change I don’t need an instructional designer. A good classroom teacher is a good online teacher I can teach the way I always have. Myths Everyone knows how to use the technology I can just post my lecture notes. Too much work I know how to teach so I don’t need help online.

  3. What we know… • All facultyneed training to teach online no matter what their discipline might be. • TPACKcan provide a theoretical framework. • Facilitation in an online environment is key to successful online teaching. • Technical training is the most often provided. • Blended online environments are most successful. http://thejournal.com/Articles/2004/09/01/Faculty-Training-for-Online-Teaching.aspx?Page=1

  4. TPACK Technology Content Pedagogy

  5. Technology

  6. http://www.tpck.org/ TPACK Model

  7. Quality Matters Course Design

  8. Quality Matters Process is an inter-institutional peer reviewprocess that is dedicated to the continuous improvement of online course design.

  9. Quality Assurance through Faculty Development and Course Design

  10. QM Underlying Principles • Continuous • The process is designed to ensure that all reviewed courses will eventually meet expectations. • The rubric-based review is integral to a continuous quality improvement process. • Centered • On research:The development of the rubric is based on national standards of best practice, the research literature, and instructional design principles.

  11. Collegial • Review is part of a faculty-driven, peer review process. • The review process is intended to be diagnostic and collegial, not evaluative and judgmental. • Collaborative • The review is based on collaboratively identified evidencefound in the course rather than the personal preference of an individual reviewer. • The review is flexible and not prescriptive (many ways to meet each standard). • The review team consists of three experienced online instructors as reviewers along with the course faculty developer.

  12. QM Rubric http://www.qmprogram.org/files/QM_Standards_2011-2013.pdf

  13. 8 Critical Course Components • Course Overview and Introduction • Learning Outcomes • Assessment and Measurement • Instructional Materials • Learner Interaction and Engagement • Course Technology • Learner Support • Accessibility These work together to ensure learners achieve the desired learning outcomes

  14. 1. Course Overview and Introduction • How to get started and where to find various course components. • Purpose and structure of the course. • Etiquette expectations • Prerequisite knowledge and/or any required competencies. • Minimum technical skills. • The self-introduction by the instructor. • Students introduce themselves to the class.

  15. 2. Learning Outcomes (Competencies) • Learning outcomes are measurable. • The module/unit learning objectives are measurable and consistent with the course-level objectives. • All learning objectives are stated clearly and written from the students’ perspective. • How to meet the learning objectives are adequate and stated clearly. • Learning outcomes are appropriately designed for the level of the course.

  16. 3. Assessment and Measurement • Assessments measure the stated learning outcomes and are consistent with course activities and resources. • Course grading policy is stated clearly. • Criteria are provided for the evaluation of students’ work and participation and are tied to the course grading policy.

  17. 4. Instructional Materials • Instructional materials contribute to the achievement of learning outcomes • Purpose of instructional materials are clearly explained. • All resources and materials used in the course are appropriately cited. • Instructional materials are current. • Instructional materials present a variety of perspectives. • Distinction between required and optional materials is clearly explained.

  18. 5. Learner Interaction & Engagement • Learning activities promote the achievement of learning objectives. • Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning. • Instructor’s plan for classroom response time and feedback on assignments is clearly stated. • Requirements for student interaction are clearly articulated.

  19. 6. Course Technology • Tools and media support the course learning outcomes. • Course tools and media support student engagement. • Guide the student to become an active learner. • Navigation throughout the online components of the course is logical, consistent, and efficient. • Assessment instruments are sequenced, varied, and appropriate to the student work being assessed. • Students have multiple opportunities to measure their own learning progress.

  20. 7. Learner Support • Clear description of the technical support offered and how to access it. • Institution’s accessibility policies and services. • Ready access the technologies required in the course. • Course technologies are current

  21. 8. Accessibility • Course employs accessible technologies and provides guidance on how to obtain accommodation. • Course contains equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content. • Course design facilitates readability and minimizes distractions. • Course design accommodates the use of assistive technologies.

  22. Possible Tools • Adobe Presenter • Adobe Connect • Accessible Twitter • Accessible YouTube • Jaws Screen Reader http://www.accesswatch.info/review.php http://www.stacybleeks.com/accessibility.html#Tech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAWS_%28screen_reader%29 http://www.apple.com/accessibility/resources/macosx.html http://deafness.about.com/cs/accessibility/a/webvideocc.htm

  23. QM and Evaluation • QM Evaluation of Course • Student Evaluation • Self Evaluation • Peer Evaluation

  24. We continue to ask… Is an online education as good as a face-to-face education?

  25. The better question is…… Is all of the education at your university of high quality?

  26. Dr. Teresa Franklin franklit@ohio.edu

  27. References • http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1360&bih=596&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=69RDWsNXwl-ohM:&imgrefurl=http://www.cccti.edu/StuServices/Pages/testing/testingcenter.htm&docid=hgFtmJBahsP8AM&imgurl=http://www.cccti.edu/StuServices/Pages/testing/computer-testing.jpg&w=313&h=226&ei=42qhT-efLaGd6AHd9pSJCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=125&vpy=154&dur=4125&hovh=180&hovw=250&tx=71&ty=199&sig=107397818843057483339&page=1&tbnh=129&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:70 • http://www.srebonlineteachers.org/instructionLinksPedagogy.html • O'Quinn, L. & Corry M. (2002, December 16). Factors that deter faculty from participating in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 5 (4). Retrieved October 4, 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/Quinn54.html • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt. K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for online classroom. San Francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass. • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2000). Making the transition: Helping teachers to teach online. Paper presented at EDUCAUSE: Thinking it through. Nashville , TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452 806). Retrieved October 4, 2003, from ERIC Database. • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student . (pp.17-28). San Francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass. • Parker, D., & Gemino, A. (2001). Inside online learning: Comparing conceptual and technique learning performance in place-based and ALN formats [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5 (2), 64-74. • Paulsen, M. F. (2002). Online education systems: Discussion and definition of terms . NIK Distance Education. Retrieved July 17, 2004, from http://home.nettskolen.com/~morten • Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in electronically delivered courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (1), 45-56. Abstract retrieved October 17, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Ronteltap. F., & Eurelings, A. (2002). Activity and interaction of students in an electronic learning environment for problem-based learning. Distance Education, 23 (1), 11-22. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Rosie, A. (2002). Online pedagogies and the promotion of “deep learning”. Information Services & Use, 20 (2/3), 109-116. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Schott, M., Chernish, W., Dooley, K. E., & Lindner, J. R. (2003, June 17). Innovations in distance learning program development and delivery. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 6(2). Retrieved on October 4, 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer62/schott62.html • Serwatka, J. A. (1999). Internet distance learning: How do I put my course on the web? THE Journal, 26 (10), 71-75. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and learning at a distance . Upper Saddle River , N.J. : Merrill Prentice-Hall. • Twigg, C. (2001). Quality assurance for whom? Providers and consumers in today's distributed learning environment. The Pew Learning and Technology Program, Center for Academic Transformation, Troy , New York . Retrieved February 12, 2004 from http://www.center.rpi.edu . • Valentine, D. (2002, October 9). Distance learning: Promises, problems, and possibilities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 5(3). Retrieved on October 4, 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/valentine53.html • Volery, T. (2000). Critical success factors in online education [Electronic version]. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14 (5), 216-223. • Weiger, P. R. (1998). What a tangle (world wide) web we weave. Community College Week , 10 (22), 11-13. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Wheeler, S., Waite, S. J., & Bromfield, C. (2002). Promoting creative thinking through the use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18 (3), 367-378. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 8 (2), 139-152. • Zheng, L., & Smaldino, S. (2003). Key instructional design elements for distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4 (2), 153-166. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database.

  28. References • Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States , 2002 and 2003. The Sloan Consortium, Needham , Massachusetts . Retrieved February 12, 2004 from http://www.sloan-c.org . • Alley, L. R. & Jansak, K. E. (2001). The ten keys to quality assurance and assessment in Online Learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13 (3), 3-18. • Althaus, S. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-line discussion. Communication Education 46 , 158-174. • Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching Theology and Religion, 5 (1), 17-29. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Blake, N. (2000). Tutors and students without faces or places. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34 (1), 183-199. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Berge, Z. L.(1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy fix it? Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1 (2). Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Berge12.html • Berge, Z. L., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Haneghan, J. V. (2002). Barriers to distance education and training. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 (4), 409-419. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Bi, X. (2000 ). Instructional design attributes of web-based courses . WebNet 2000 World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings, San Antonio , TX . ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Clearinghouse No: IR020509. • Brown, A., & Green T. (Jan/Feb 2003). Showing up to class in pajamas (or less!): The fantasies and realities of on-line professional development. Clearing House, 76 (3), 148-151. • Brown, D. G. (2002). The role you play in online discussion. Syllabus, 16 (5), 9. • Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5 (2), 18-35. • Buck, J. (2001). Assuring quality in distance education. Higher Education in Europe , 26 (4), 599-602. • Clay, M. (n.d.). Faculty attitudes toward distance education at the State University of West Georgia . Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/attitudes.html. • Clark, D. (2002). Psychological myths in e-learning. Medical Teacher, 24 (6), 598-604. • Cooper, L. (2000). On-line courses tips for making them work. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 27 (8), 87-92. • Cuellar, N. (2002). The transition from classroom to online teaching. Nursing Forum, 37 (3), 6-13. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Deubel, P. (2003, September 15). Learning from reflections – issues in building quality online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 6 (3). Retrieved October 11, 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/deubel63.html • Dringus, L. P. (Winter 2000). Towards active online learning: A dramatic shift in perspective for learners. Internet and Higher Education, 2 (4), 189-195. • Donlevy, J. (2003). Online learning in virtual high school. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30 (2), 117-122. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Edelstein, S. & Edwards, J. (2002, March 29). If you build it, they will come: Building learning communities through threaded discussion. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 5 (1). Retrieved October 11, 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/edelstein51.html • Garrison, B., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 8 (2), 61-74. • Heberling, M. (2002). Maintaining academic integrity in online education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5 (2). Retrieved October 27, 2003 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/heberling51.html • Hitch, L. P. & Hirsch, D. (2001). Model training. The Journal of Academic Leadership, 27 (1), 15-19. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from EBSCOhost database. • Howland, J. L. & Moore, J. (2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in Internet-based courses. Distance education, 23 (2), 183-196. Abstract retrieved November 13, 2003 from EBSCOHost Database. • Hughes, J. A. (2004). Supporting the online learner. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 369-370). Athabasca , Canada : Athabasca University . • Kettner-Polley, R. B . ( 1999 ). The making of a virtual professor. ALN Magazine, 3 (1). Retrieved September 25, 2004 from http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v3n1/kettner.asp • Khan, B. (1997). Web-based instruction: What is it and why is it? In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. • Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defense and delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84 , 5-14. • Ko, S. S. & Rossen, S. (1998). Faculty development for online instruction: Two models for effective teaching. Paper presented at 1998 Third Annual TCC Online Conference. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcon98/paper/ko.html. • Koory, M. A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of “An introduction to Shakespeare”[Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 7 (2), 18-35.

More Related