1 / 9

Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning

Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning. A Grant Initiative of MarylandOnline Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). NUTN Panel Presentation – June 1, 2006.

macha
Download Presentation

Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning

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. Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning A Grant Initiative of MarylandOnline Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) NUTN Panel Presentation – June 1, 2006

  2. Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning

  3. Scope of QM Project (June 2006) • >130 institutions in 27 states involved • 111 Courses Reviewed from 28 HEIs • 18 in MD • 10 outside of MD • 570 Peer Reviewers trained; 128 HEIs/orgs. • ~40 QM Trainers from 27 HEIs • ~12 ‘research projects’ to assess impact

  4. QM Peer Review Process as an Input • Purpose = quality improvement, not judgment • Focus = course design • QM rubric is key element of process • QM rubric is being adapted in variety of ways • Course review, design, development • Faculty training and development • Quality benchmarking (institutionally; identifying areas of needed improvement) • Strategic planning tool • Awareness/interest/support raising) • QM process is more important than the rubric • Peer review = faculty-centered process

  5. Course Meets Quality Expectations Course Revision Quality Matters:Course Peer Review Process • Institutions • CAO’s • AR’s Faculty Course Developers National Standards & Research Literature Course Rubric Faculty Reviewers Training Peer Course Review Feedback Instructional Designers

  6. The Importance of a Faculty-Centered Process • PRT decisionmaking is more important than more detailed “idiotproof” rubric • Faculty (PRT, instructors, instructional designers) see this as excellent faculty development opportunity • PRTs firm and fair • Reduces potential for abuse

  7. QM Research Projects: Measuring the Impact of Inputs • Student Impact: • Applying rubric elements to hybrids (AACC) • Impact on student learning outcomes (SUNY-Canton) • Action research redesign (Frederick CC) • Design issues & student achievement (CSM) • Learning activities & course completion (NVCC) • Effect of course review on student evals (PGCC) • Other research projects • QM Model adoption (MN Online) • Reliability studies (MOL) • Faculty survey (UMUC) • VENDRIC (Harford CC/PGCC)

  8. Other Examples of QA Efforts • Michigan Community College Virtual Learning Collaborative’s Online Course Development Guidelines and Rubric • CSU-Chico’s Committee for Evaluation of Exemplary Online Courses, Rubric for Online Instruction (ROI) • The Monterey Institute for Technology and Education Online Course Evaluation Project • SUNY Learning Network • eArmyU

  9. Presenter/QM Project Evaluator: John Sener -- jsener@sloan-c.org QM Project Coordinator: Kay Kane kkane@pgcc.edu QM Project Co-Directors:Chris Sax csax@umuc.eduMary Wells mwells@pgcc.edu Contact Information

More Related