Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
North Park Quality Matters Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

North Park Quality Matters Presentation

377
views

Published on

Presentation to SLATE Conference, Chicago, October 22, 2010

Presentation to SLATE Conference, Chicago, October 22, 2010

Published in: Education, Economy & Finance

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
377
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Due to budget constraints and the continuing development of our stated policy, we have not been able to implement the last two items.
  • (open the fac dev course to show the modules. Especially mod 1 & 2.)
  • Transcript

    • 1. Implementing QM at North Park University Online
    • 2. What is Quality Matters? http://www.qmprogram.org/
      A quality assurance process to increase student retention, learning and satisfaction in online and hybrid courses by implementing better course design
      Faculty-centered
      Research-based
      Adopted by hundreds of higher education institutions across forty-two states, Canada, Australia and Bermuda
    • 3. Why Subscribe to QM?
      • Required growth in online and hybrid programs
      • 4. Fiscally responsible
      • 5. Solid quality assurance in online and hybrid courses – research-based and widely accepted
    • Why Subscribe to QM? (con’t)
      • Accreditation’s increasing focus on assessment of student learning
      • 6. More of a faculty review process than a process imposed by a university department
      • 7. Networking opportunities
    • Need to Ensure Quality
      Trained 2 Office of Distributed Learning (ODL) staff to function as
      Course reviewers
      Development course facilitators
      Online and hybrid mentors
    • 8. Need to Ensure Quality (con’t)
      Trained 2 faculty members to function as
      Review chairs
      Development course facilitators
      Online and hybrid mentors
    • 9. North Park’s Online Development Course
      Consists of 3 Modules
      Based on ADDIE course design model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation)
      Online format; faculty members as students
      Constant communication with faculty
      Incorporates material from QM rubric throughout
    • 10. 3 Modules
    • 11.
    • 12.
    • 13. QM Rubrics with tie-in to course
    • 14. Module 3: Building course content in CMS
      Internal reviews of new online and hybrid courses
      As the last step in Module 3
      Review starts 6 weeks before start of term
      Completed by a team of 3 QM-trained reviewers
      2 ODL staff – team members
      1 faculty member – team chair
    • 15. Module 3 (con’t)
      Internal reviews of repeat online and hybrid courses
      Faculty with 3-year-old courses will participate
      As a last step in Module 3
      Review starts 6 weeks before start of term
      Completed by a team of 3 QM-trained reviewers
      2 ODL staff – team members
      1 faculty member – team chair
    • 16. Findings: Positives
      Encourages faculty buy-in
      Rubric is based on research
      Process is ongoing
      Criteria is standardized for reviews
      Guides development of new courses
      Outlines expectations before review
      Provides design ideas
      Supports consistency in quality
    • 17. Findings: Positives (con’t)
      Faculty member as team review chair aids in communication
      Encourages peer-to-peer discussions
      Can provide tried-and-true ideas
    • 18. Findings: Positives (con’t)
      Online QM rubric tool saves time
      Instructor worksheets in one accessible area
      Rubric includes annotations and space for additional notes
      All final rubrics merged at the end
      Course amendment form
      History of reviews saved online
    • 19. Findings: Positives (con’t)
      After going through development process and internal review, courses are high quality
      Per internal peer reviewers
      Per comparison to QM managed reviews
    • 20. Findings: Challenges
      Online QM rubric tool not always utilized by faculty
      Separate site location
      Separate login than all other university tools
      Faculty often fall back on email
    • 21. Findings: Challenges (con’t)
      Not all courses meet standards 1st time
      Professors feel frustrated
      Repeat course creators don’t understand why past courses were fine (before QM)
      Professors don’t see that this is an ongoing process (not a pass/fail situation)
    • 22. Findings: Challenges (con’t)
      Why courses don’t meet standards
      Repeat professors don’t always follow all steps that match to rubric
      Content in “final” course can be different than originally reviewed content submitted in the development process
      Facilitator of faculty development course and reviewers have differing opinions
    • 23. Future Plans
      Reorganization of the development course based on
      Needs assessment
      QM team brainstorming
      Updated research on other school’s programs
      • Review of team communication
      • 24. Wording in development course
      • 25. Email wording
    • Future Plans
      Adding new forms of recognition
      Faculty/Staff announcements
      Special logo in course in CMS
      Others?
    • 26. Jenny Henrikson
      jhenrikson@northpark.edu
      Sonja Strahl
      sstrahl@northpark.edu
      Email for temporary access to our Faculty Development course or with any questions
      Presentation on www.slideshare.net