• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Quality, Who Says
 

Quality, Who Says

on

  • 722 views

WCET 2008 Conference presentation

WCET 2008 Conference presentation

Statistics

Views

Total Views
722
Views on SlideShare
721
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 Quality, Who Says Presentation Transcript

    • Quality? Who Says? WCET Annual Conference November 9, 2007
    • 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
    • Our Panel Kay Kane, Quality Matters, MarylandOnline Allison Peterson, Texas Woman’s University David Curtis, Park University Michael Anderson, UT TeleCampus
    • Agenda Introduce QA programs Address Key Issues: Impact on participation Study outcomes Value of the process Lessons Learned Q&A Final Thoughts
    • Quality Assurance Programs What’s it all about? How do we do it?
    • Texas Woman’s University A Brief Introduction to the Quality Enhancement Plan
    • 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)
    • Quality Matters
    • Course Course Meets Quality Expectations Peer Review Course Feedback Revision
    • 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
    • QM Strengths Grounded in:  research literature  national standards of best practice  instructional design principles www.QualityMatters.org
    • 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 +
    • Quality Starts… …and doesn’t stop  Training  Developing  Reviewing
    • Key Issues  Impact on participation  Study outcomes  Value of the process  Lessons Learned
    • Impact of Participation on Faculty Peer Reviewers
    • Year One – Spring 2007  January 2007 – August 2007  10 Faculty  6 Staff  QM Reviewer Training  Revise 1 Course – 14 Essential Standards  $400 Stipend
    • 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
    • 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
    • Year Three – Fall 2008  September 2008 – August 2009  35 Faculty  QM Reviewer Training  Revise 1 Course – All 40 Standards  Review 1 Course  $400 Stipend
    • Training Changes  Online Educator Symposium  Online Course  Presentations  One-to-one consultations
    • Quality Matters Study Outcomes
    • FY07 Course Reviews 85 courses reviewed FY07  23 different institutions  45 QM Managed  40 Independent
    • 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%
    • Common Themes  Common areas for course improvement  These are potential targets for:  faculty training  special attention in initial course development
    • 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%
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • Park University Value of the Process
    • 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 
    • 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.
    • Value of the Process  SO 141 – Introduction to Sociology example
    • 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
    • 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
    • Quality Reviews …before the course runs Reviewing from multiple perspectives  Technical review (external)  Content  Communication  Assessments  Services  Links  Final Check (internal)
    • Quality Evolves …or becomes extinct Critical factors  Faculty buy-in  Student satisfaction  Objective  Pre-tech reviews  Tech reviews  Subjective  Checkpoints  Rubrics
    • 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
    • Quality Looks Ahead …or falls behind Planned changes  Training  Best practices  Advanced workshops  Development  Community of Practice  Template/technique sharing  Reviewing  cQual application
    • Wrap Up / Q&A
    • Final Thoughts…
    • Thank you!