Evaluating the Quality of Online Programs

1. Evaluating the Quality of Online Programs Diane Ruiz Cairns, Ed.S. Lawrence Technological University eLearning Services

2. Agenda Overview Why monitor quality? Methods for monitoring quality of online programs Lawrence Tech, eLearning Services experience Next steps

3. Overview • Program Evaluation • Making data-driven decisions • Support of performance improvement • Alignment of resources, performance and strategic goals • Add measurable value

4. Overview • Quality of online programs impacts student retention, enrollment and graduation rates • Online environment includes: • Institutional Technology • Course Development • Course Structure • Teaching and Learning • Student and Faculty support • Methods of Evaluation and Assessment

5. Overview • Measures of success include: • Enrollment Reports • Assessment of Learning • Student Evaluation Survey • Informal Feedback

6. Why Monitor Quality? Results based Measurable results Effective course content Efficiencies in operation Teaching effectiveness

7. Why Monitor Quality? Alignment of methods for measuring and assurance of quality Stability of online programs Impacting student satisfaction Value of online programs

8. Evaluating Quality of Online Programs Views and methods for evaluating programs varies Adoption of a comprehensive tool or methods brings alignment A validated tool recognized by industry can assist with reliability Requirements before adopting a tool

9. Evaluating Quality of Online Programs Repeatable data collection results in meaningful collection of data Comprehensive approach Multiple collection cycles supportive of reasonable and responsible data

10. Evaluating Quality of Online Programs • Requires careful planning • Data collection focus on mega, macro, micro levels • Systems approach • Data collected include: • Effective course content • Efficiencies in operation • Teaching effectiveness

11. Evaluating Quality of Online Programs • Mega • Success of online program at meeting university enrollment goals • Support of teaching and learning goals • Macro • Technological infrastructure • Individual courses support of teaching and learning guidelines • Faculty engagement • Micro • Instructional design impact • Student, Faculty, Staff use of technology • Student and faculty support services

12. Evaluating Quality of Online Programs • Planning • Timeline • Participation • Communication, Communication, Communication • Conduct the evaluation • Plan for interventions

13. Monitoring of Online Program • Create Dashboard • Seven to Ten Metrics • Method for reporting (communicating) • Data collection periods

14. Example of Data Collection Schedule

15. Building a Dashboard • Elements of organizational performance • Enrollment Goals • Teaching and Learning Goals • Graduation rates • Employment outcomes • Technological metrics: uptime, type of support calls • Quality of teaching and learning • Faculty engagement • Faculty training, participation • Student evaluation survey data

16. Dashboard Examples

17. Lawrence Tech Experience • Sloan-C • Evaluation of Online Program organization • Self assessment • Baldrige Education Performance Excellence • Evaluation of education organization • Assessed by Baldrige evaluators • Blackboard Exemplary Course Rubric • Evaluation of course development • Self assessment • Quality Matters • Evaluation of course development • Assessed by qualified evaluators

18. Lawrence Tech Experience • Operation Quality • Course Quality • Course Delivery Quality • Documenting standards • Identify metric requirements • Adopting industry standards: • Sloan-C • Blackboard Exemplary Course Rubric • QM Course Design • Baldrige - future

19. Getting Started Why do this? What will you do with the data? Benchmarking Building team Confirming plan Collecting data, what data Reporting results Engagement across campus services

20. Confirming Monitoring schedule Reinforcement of quality measures Integration Policy and practices of monitor, evaluating, assessing Managing, planning for change Oversight

21. Change Be an agent of change Lens of student, employers, accrediting bodies, stakeholders Define critical success practices

22. Timeline

23. Conclusion • Confirm metrics • Begin program evaluation • Sloan-C • Develop Dashboard • Report • Refine • Apply intervention

24. Dashboard Data

25. Dashboard Data

26. Discussion There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction. -- Winston Churchill

27. References Cokins, G. (2008, April 3). How are balanced scorecards and dashboards different? Information Management.com. Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.information-management.com/news/10001076-1.html?zkPrintable=true Cowan, K. (2013, December 15). Higher education’s higher accountability. Accreditation and Standards, Winter(2014). Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/Higher-Education%27s-Higher-Accountability.aspx Dessinger, J. C. & Moseley, J. L. (2004). Confirmative evaluation: Practical strategies for valuing continuous improvement. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program Evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Frigo, M. (2012). The balanced scorecard: 20 years and counting. Strategic Finance, p. 49-53. Griggs, V., Blackburn, M., & Smith, J. (2012). The educational scorecard: The start of our journey. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 10(2), 121-131. Guerra-López, I. (2007). Evaluating impact: Evaluation and continual improvement for performance improvement practitioners. Amherst, MA, HRD Press, Inc. Hell, M., Vidačić, S., & Garača, Ž. (2009). Methodological approach to strategic performance optimization. Management, 14(2), 21-42. Hughes, K. E., & Pate, G. R. (2013). Moving beyond student ratings: A balanced scorecard approach for evaluating teaching performance. American Accounting Association, 28(1), 49-75. Kaufman, R., Gurerra, I., & Platt,W. A. (2006). Practical evaluation for educators: Finding what works and what doesn’t. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kaufman, R., Oakley-Browne, H., Watkins, R., & Leigh, D. (2003). Strategic planning for success: Aligning people, performance, and payoffs. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Kesler, G., & Kates, A. (2011). Leading organization design: How to make organization design decisions to drive the results you want. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Assessment and accountability in education: Dashboards, part 1. Baltimore, MD: Author. Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Assessment and accountability in education: Dashboards, part 2. Baltimore, MD: Author. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Shelton, K. (2010). A quality scorecard for the administration of online education programs: A Delphi study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 36-62. Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2005). An administrator’s guide to online education. USDLA Book Series on Distance Learning. The Sloan Consortium (2012). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States (2013). Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/changing_course_2012 U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2011, October 5). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs v. 154. NCES: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012154 United States Government Accountability Office. Higher Education (2011). Use of new data could help improve oversight of distance education. (GAO-12-39). Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/586340.pdf U. S. News World Report (2014, January 7). Online education. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education