Using Quality Matters TM To Improve Your Online Course

1. Using Quality MattersTMTo Improve Your Online Course Sponsored in part by MarylandOnline and the U.S. Dept. Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)

2. When viewing these slides – use the PowerPoint “Notes” view to read the narrative that accompanies each slide.

3. Quality Matters Quality does matter to … • students • faculty • administrators • institutions • consortia • accrediting agencies • legislators • tax-payers How do we … • identify & recognize it? • motivate & instill it? • assess & measure it? • insure it? • assure it?

4. Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning • Grantor: FIPSE • Grant period: 9/03 – 8/06 • Award: $509,177 • Grantee: Maryland Online www.QualityMatters.org

5. MarylandOnline • Voluntary statewide inter-segmental consortium: 15 community colleges, 5 senior institutions • Dedicated to support of distance learning in Maryland • Goals • Faculty training • Sharing of seats in online courses • Facilitate collaborations among members • Provide statewide leadership in distance education

6. FIPSE Interested Because … • Quality assurance of online courses is important • Voluntary,inter-institutional assurance has never been done before • This can serve as a national model Quality Matters!

7. 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

8. Course Meets Quality Expectations Course Revision Quality Matters:Course Peer Review Process Faculty Course Developers Institutions National Standards & Research Literature Course Rubric Faculty Reviewers Training Peer Course Review Feedback Instructional Designers

9. Major Themes • develop inter-institutional consensus on criteria & process for online course QA • assure & improve course quality • positively impact student learning • faculty-centered activities • faculty training & professional development • foster sharing of materials and expertise • promote voluntary participation and adoption • ensure institutional autonomy • replicable, reliable, and scalable processes

10. Underlying Principles of QM • The QM toolset and process are: • based in national standards of best practice, the research literature and instructional design principles • designed to promote student learning • integral to a continuous quality improvement process • part of a faculty-driven, peer review process • Course does not have to be “perfect” but better than just “good enough.” (Standards met at about 85% level or better.)

11. For Our Purposes, Quality Is… • 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 %

12. Underlying Principles of QM • Process designed to ensure all reviewed courses will eventually meet expectations • Review team must include an external peer reviewer • Course faculty or instructor considered part of the review team • Collegial review process, not an evaluation process

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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. What’s In It For Institutions … • External validation • Strengthen accreditation package • Raise QA as a priority activity • Access to a sustainable, replicable, scalable QA process • Inform online course training & practices • Provide professional development activities

17. What’s In It For Faculty … • Improve online courses • External quality assurance • Expand professional community • Review other courses and gain new ideas for own course • Participation useful for professional development plan and portfolio • Peer Reviewers receive $150 for each completed review

18. QM in Transition • 2003 – August 2006 • QM project funded by FIPSE grant money • materials and some services freely available • August 2006 and beyond • QM project funded by MarylandOnline • Some limited materials will be freely available • Other materials available to individuals and institutions at nominal fees • Institutional membership affords full access to materials and services

19. The Rubric • Based in • research literature • nationally recognized standards of best practice • instructional design principles • Used by review teams to: • assess course quality in 8 key areas (40 review elements) • provide feedback to faculty course developer • provide guidance to instructional design support team

20. The Rubric • Eight standards: • Course Overview and Introduction • Learning Objectives • Assessment and Measurement • Resources and Materials • Learner Interaction • Course Technology • Learner Support • Accessibility Key components must align.

21. Rubric Features • Living document • Web-based • Automated compiling of team report • Annotations • Examples

22. Rubric Scoring • Team of three (3) reviewers • One score per standard based on team majority • Assigned point value; not sliding scale

23. To Meet Expectations… A course must achieve: • “Yes” on all 14 of the 3-point “essential” standards. • A minimum of 68 out of 80 points 68/80 = 85%

24. 2006-2007 Rubric • Rubric designed for application to fully online and hybrid/blended courses • Same set of standards apply to both • How we achieve the standards may differ • For hybrids, focus on pedagogical integration of online and F2F components

25. Scope of QM • Involved individuals & programs from 160+ institutions in 28 states • Trained 694 individuals from 154 different institutions in 28 states to use the rubric • Reviewed 111 courses from 29 different institutions (18 MD institutions, 11 institutions in 5 states outside MD)

26. External Partners Advisory Board • Middle States Comm on Higher Ed • MD Higher Education Commission • MD State Department of Education • Penn State University • Minnesota Online • Defense Acquisition University • US Naval Academy • Miami University (OH) • South Dakota Electronic Univ Const • Northern Virginia CC • Bucks County CC (PA) • Education Direct • Kaplan College • Kentucky Virtual University (KYVU) • Sloan Consortium • Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) • Western Cooperative for Education Telecommunications (WCET) • Towson University (MD) • Michigan Virtual Community College Consortium • Portland Community College (OR) • Florida Community College of Jacksonville (FL) • Raritan Valley Community College (NJ)

27. Adaptations of QM System • Guidelines for initial online course development • Basis for the development of fully online programs • Quality assurance of existing courses • Use of QM rubric as is; addition of institutional-specific criteria; adaptation to institutional needs • Ongoing faculty professional development

28. Adaptations of QM System • Quality benchmarking activities • Raise awareness, interest, support for online curricula • Institutional re-accreditation packages • Strategic planning; formation of distance learning policies & steering committees • Familiarity with QM as a hiring factor

29. Awards - 2005 • WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award, November 2005. • USDLA 21st Century Best Practice Award,October 2005. • Maryland Distance Learning Association (MDLA) Best Program Award,March 2005.

30. More Information www.QualityMatters.org Info@QualityMatters.org