Quality, Who Says
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Quality, Who Says

on

  • 788 views

WCET 2008 Conference presentation

WCET 2008 Conference presentation

Statistics

Views

Total Views
788
Views on SlideShare
787
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Quality, Who Says Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Quality? Who Says? WCET Annual Conference November 9, 2007
  • 2. Objectives  Walk away with multiple views on rubrics for assessing quality of online instruction  Take ideas from three different quality assurance methods  Recognize the impact and value of a quality assurance program
  • 3. Our Panel Kay Kane, Quality Matters, MarylandOnline Allison Peterson, Texas Woman’s University David Curtis, Park University Michael Anderson, UT TeleCampus
  • 4. Agenda Introduce QA programs Address Key Issues: Impact on participation Study outcomes Value of the process Lessons Learned Q&A Final Thoughts
  • 5. Quality Assurance Programs What’s it all about? How do we do it?
  • 6. Texas Woman’s University A Brief Introduction to the Quality Enhancement Plan
  • 7. Texas Woman’s University  Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)  Principles of Good Practice (PGP)  Institutional Context & Commitment  Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)  Quality Matters (QM)
  • 8. Quality Matters
  • 9. Course Course Meets Quality Expectations Peer Review Course Feedback Revision
  • 10. The Rubric  Eight standards:  Course Overview and Introduction  Learning Objectives  Assessment and Measurement Key components  Resources and Materials must align.  Learner Interaction  Course Technology  Learner Support  ADA Compliance
  • 11. QM Strengths Grounded in:  research literature  national standards of best practice  instructional design principles www.QualityMatters.org
  • 12. Park University By the Numbers!  Online Students = 52,000+  This counts all students taking all classes, so a student taking four online class is counted as four (4) students.  Online Courses = 322 Discrete Courses  A total of 524 Sections  Online Faculty = 455 +
  • 13. Quality Starts… …and doesn’t stop  Training  Developing  Reviewing
  • 14. Key Issues  Impact on participation  Study outcomes  Value of the process  Lessons Learned
  • 15. Impact of Participation on Faculty Peer Reviewers
  • 16. Year One – Spring 2007  January 2007 – August 2007  10 Faculty  6 Staff  QM Reviewer Training  Revise 1 Course – 14 Essential Standards  $400 Stipend
  • 17. Year One – Results  3 Course Reviews  1 Review and Recognized  1 in Review  1 Preparing for Review  2 Course Reviewers  1 Summer  1 Fall  3 Potential Reviewers
  • 18. Year Two – Fall 2007  September 2007 – August 2008  25 Faculty  1 Staff  QM Reviewer Training  Revise 1 Course – All 40 Standards  Review 1 Course  $400 Stipend
  • 19. Year Three – Fall 2008  September 2008 – August 2009  35 Faculty  QM Reviewer Training  Revise 1 Course – All 40 Standards  Review 1 Course  $400 Stipend
  • 20. Training Changes  Online Educator Symposium  Online Course  Presentations  One-to-one consultations
  • 21. Quality Matters Study Outcomes
  • 22. FY07 Course Reviews 85 courses reviewed FY07  23 different institutions  45 QM Managed  40 Independent
  • 23. FY07 Course Reviews Upon initial review:  38% met expectations  62% do not yet meet expectations  30% of these were revised and met expectations Currently Recognized by QM: 56%
  • 24. Common Themes  Common areas for course improvement  These are potential targets for:  faculty training  special attention in initial course development
  • 25. Common Areas for Improvement Module objectives measurable/consistent with course objectives 45% "Self-check“/practice assignments for timely feedback 42% Instructions on how to meet the learning objectives 40% Equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content 39% Instructor response and availability 38% Requirements/skills/prerequisites clearly stated 35% Navigational instructions 32% Criteria for the evaluation of students' work and participation 31%
  • 26. Impact on Faculty and Reviewers during Grant Faculty said as a result of the review: 91% made changes in the course 89% felt quality of course design improved Reviewers said as a result of the review: 73% made changes to own online course 100% said valuable professional development activity
  • 27. Student Learning & Interaction College of Southern MD  General education IT course (100+ students)  Revisions made in all learning modules:  created Learning Guides (explicit roadmap)  reorganized presentation and design  added classroom assessment techniques (CATs)  Increase in:  the frequency of content access by students  % of A grades awarded in the course
  • 28. Impact of Navigation Directions Prince George’s CC, MD  Standard I.1 – course navigation  After revision of navigation bar:  Students asked fewer questions: course navigation, locating information, course requirements  Less student concern about what they needed to do to succeed
  • 29. Student Perceptions & Priorities SUNY Canton  3 standards most often noted as not being met:  Course navigation directions  Assessments & measurement provide feedback to students  Clear standards for instructor response & availability
  • 30. Park University Value of the Process
  • 31. Value of the Process  The Administration has always been concerned with maintaining academic integrity in all programs, on-ground and online.  The goal was never to be “the biggest”, just the best. And by being the best, we might be the biggest 
  • 32. Value of the Process  The adoption of the Quality Matters program and ideology assures that the design and development of online classes will meet the highest quality standards of academic excellence.  The “master course” structure for online courses, combined with using the QM rubric for online reviews, assures that a course AND all sections of that course will met QM Standards and Expectations.
  • 33. Value of the Process  SO 141 – Introduction to Sociology example
  • 34. Quality (at) Training …get off on the right foot Training workshop required one year out  Course examples  Content design  Interactivity (communication)  Assessment  Multiple online courses  Principles of Good Practice Self-Study  Instructional Design Tutorial
  • 35. Quality Development …from the first word Developing in stages  Checkpoint #1  Syllabus, sample lesson  Checkpoint #2  ½ of the course, Mac  Content, interaction, assessment  Copy editing
  • 36. Quality Reviews …before the course runs Reviewing from multiple perspectives  Technical review (external)  Content  Communication  Assessments  Services  Links  Final Check (internal)
  • 37. Quality Evolves …or becomes extinct Critical factors  Faculty buy-in  Student satisfaction  Objective  Pre-tech reviews  Tech reviews  Subjective  Checkpoints  Rubrics
  • 38. Technical calls & student evaluations 200 14.00% 180 Technical issues Courses 12.00% 1 160 in courses 10.00% 140 120 8.00% 100 6.00% 80 60 4.00% 40 Student design 2.00% 20 complaints2 0.00% 0 SP00 FA00 SP01FA01 SP02 FA02 SP03 FA03 SP04 FA04 SP05 FA05 SP06 SP00 FA00 SP01 FA01 SP02 FA02 SP03 FA03 SP04 FA04 SP05 FA05 SP06 FA06 FA06 SP07 SP07 1 Help Desk tickets as 2 Studentnegative a percent of courses comments on design as a percent of evaluations
  • 39. Quality Looks Ahead …or falls behind Planned changes  Training  Best practices  Advanced workshops  Development  Community of Practice  Template/technique sharing  Reviewing  cQual application
  • 40. Wrap Up / Q&A
  • 41. Final Thoughts…
  • 42. Thank you!