Defining and Implementing Quality Assurance Standards for Online Courses Lawrence C. Ragan, Director, Instructional Design/Development, The Pennsylvania State University Christina M. Sax, Professor & Assistant Dean, Social, Behavioral, Natural, & Mathematical Sciences, University of Maryland University College
29
Embed
Defining and Implementing Quality Assurance Standards for Online Courses Lawrence C. Ragan, Director, Instructional Design/Development, The Pennsylvania.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Defining and Implementing Quality Assurance Standards for
Online Courses
Lawrence C. Ragan, Director, Instructional Design/Development, The Pennsylvania State University
Christina M. Sax, Professor & Assistant Dean, Social, Behavioral, Natural, & Mathematical Sciences, University of Maryland
University College
Presentation Agenda• Session Objectives• Participant Activity• QM Overview: Circle and Rubric• Penn State Approach/Status• Story of Convergence• QM Attractive Features• PSU Adoption/Adaptation• QM Opportunities• a. Models• b. Institution/Institute
Session Objective
• Provide an overview of the development, implementation and administration of an inter-institutional quality assurance system and the application within a single institution.
Participant Activity
• 2-minute drill– Turn to person next to you and discuss:– What characteristics would you use to assess the
quality of the vehicle you may be purchasing?
• Feedback from Teams
• Issues of Definition--single vs group
How do we …
• identify & recognize it?
• motivate & instill it?
• assess & measure it?
• insure it?
• assure it?
Quality Matters
• Quality does matter to …• students• faculty• administrators• institutions• consortia• accrediting agencies• legislators• tax-payers
Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality
Assurance in Online Learning• Grantor: FIPSE
– Grant period: 9/03 – 8/06– Award: $509,177
• Grantee: MarylandOnline– Statewide consortium: 14 community colleges, 5
• 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 %
Major Themes• develop inter-institutional consensus - criteria &
process online course QA• assure & improve course quality• positively impact student learning• faculty-centered activities• promote voluntary participation and adoption• ensure institutional autonomy• replicable, reliable, and scalable processes• foster sharing of materials and expertise• create opportunities for training and professional
development
What Quality Matters is NOT
• Not about an individual instructor
(it’s about the course design)
• Not about faculty evaluation
(it’s about course quality)
• Not a win/lose, pass/fail test
(it’s about a continuous improvement process in a supportive environment)
Quality Matters Rubric
• Based on – 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
Rubric Scoring
Standards Points Relative Value
14 3 Essential
12 2 Very Important
14 1 Important
TOTALS
40 80
• Team of three reviewers
• One score per standard based on majority
• Two criteria to meet quality expectations:• “Yes” to all 14 Essential Standards• Receive at least a total of 68 points
Review Teams
• Teams composed of 3 reviewers:– 1 from home institution, 2 from others – 1 from same discipline, 2 from others– May be either faculty and or ID/IT (practitioners)– mix of CC & 4 yr schools– mix of large & small schools– mix of public & private schools
• Course author--resource for review team
Reviewer Rubric Training
• Focus on:– Application of rubric to course review– Interpretation of review elements– Providing constructive feedback– Competency-based
Course Reviews
• To date, 50% meet expectations on initial review– Instructional design support provided
• Identified 11 common areas for improvement– Target for course development/revision, faculty training
• instructor's self-introduction
• netiquette expectations
• learning objectives stated at the module/unit level
• self-check/practice activities with feedback
• Interaction
• links to school's academic support
• ADA issues
What’s In It For Institutions …
• External validation process
• Strengthens institution’s accreditation package
• Raise QA as a priority activity
• Gain access to a sustainable, replicable, scalable QA process
• Inform online course training & practices
• Provide professional development activities
What’s In It For Participants …
• improve your online course• instructional design support• external quality assurance • expand professional community• chance to review other courses• gain new ideas for your own course• participation useful for annual evaluations,
promotion applications, professional development plan/requirements
National Participation
• Scope:– individuals from 70 different institutions (including the 19
MOL schools) in 14 different states
– Over 250 faculty trained to review online courses using the rubric
– National external partners & advisory board
• Use of QM System:– online course development, review, and revision, faculty