Making the Grade:
Quality Assurance for
e-Learning at Penn State
Cathy Holsing, Penn State University
Lawrence C. Ragan, Penn State University
Ann Taylor, Penn State University

Act 1: The Early Years (2000-03)
• PSU World Campus developed a set of “Online
Technical Standards and Pedagogical Guidelines”
• Description of how a World Campus course would
need to be designed in order for WC delivery
• Crafted primarily by IDs
highly detailed (256 data points)
•
• virtually incomprehensible and
• practically uninterruptible
• routinely ignored

Act 2: Institutional Buy-in
•2003 “Tech Stand/Ped Guidelines”  were
• “adopted” by the University for basis of sharing
courses between campuses and courses via World
Campus
– Buried on some institutional web page
– Mostly ignored
•2006 PSU Online Coordinating Council establishes a
subcommittee (with many of the original suspects)
and sets out to revisit and recast the “Tech Standards”

Act 3: The Wiser Years
• 2005 PSU Online signs on to Quality
Matters project
• 2006 PSU Online Coordinating Council
subcommittee begins task of revisiting “Tech
Standards”
• 2006 PSU Online subcommittee begins
process of crafting a PSU-specific version of
the Quality Matters rubric

Act 4: Mapping from QM to QA
• Identified several issues of implementing
QM at PSU
– Size, number and volume
– Costs
– Desired intent

Act 5: The Result
• Set out to create a PSU-specific instrument
and process ==> QA@PSU
• Based QA@PSU on QM Rubric and system
• QA@PSU Standards have been vetted and
approved and now replace the “Tech
Standards and Ped Guidelines.”

QA @ PSU Standards
1. Navigation
The course has a consistent and intuitive navigation system
enabling students to quickly locate course information and
materials.
2. Student Orientation
A course orientation is used to familiarize the students with
the course.
3. Syllabus
Students have easy access to a course syllabus which
contains crucial course information and requirements they
need to know about the course prior to starting.

QA @ PSU Standards
4. Instructor Response and Availability
Instructor response time and availability is clearly
communicated to the student.
5. Course Resource Requirements
Hardware, software, or specialized resources required are
clearly communicated to the students.
6. Technical Support
Information regarding access to technical support is clearly
communicated to the students.

QA @ PSU Standards
7. Accessibility Requirements
The course adheres to University policies and guidelines
regarding accessibility.
8. Learning Objectives
The course contains learning goals and objectives.
9. Learning Activities and Assessment
The course learning activities and assessment serve to
stimulate student interactions with the course content and
determine how well student performance achieves the course
goals and learning objectives.

QA @ PSU Standards
10. Copyright Requirements
The online course adheres to the current University policies
for the use of third-party copyrighted material or is able to
provide evidence of appropriate copyright clearance.
11. Course Functionality
All aspects of the course perform properly and support
student progress.
12. Student Input for Course Improvements
Opportunities are provided to gather input from students on
an on-going basis in order to inform course improvements.

Review Process & Results
Additional tools provided:
1. Instructor Input Form
o Completed by Course Faculty Developer to provide
additional information about the course to assist the Peer
Reviewers
2. Course Review Checklist
o Completed by Peer Reviewers as they review course
o Documents status of each standard for that course:
 Standard met
 Standard met, modifications suggested
 Standard not met
o Includes specific feedback on each standard from Peer
Reviewers

Review Process & Results
1. Piloted the review process with courses from the College of
Arts and Architecture and World Campus
2. Different colleges can implement process in different ways:
o College of the Liberal Arts
 team approach with internal ID, external ID and faculty
 used for new courses and as a starting point for
courses ready for revision
 used as a faculty development tool
o College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
 courses reviewed by individual editors as part of their
overall course editing process
 feedback to ID, who will work with faculty

Q&A
• Questions?
• Thoughts?
• Ideas?

For Additional Information
Contacts:
Cathy Holsing - cholsing@psu.edu
Larry Ragan - lcr1@psu.edu
Ann Taylor - anntaylor@psu.edu
https://webhosting.its.psu.edu/elearning/standards.cfm