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

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.