North Park Quality Matters Presentation


Published on

Presentation to SLATE Conference, Chicago, October 22, 2010

Published in: Education, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

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.)
  • North Park Quality Matters Presentation

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