Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Larry Ragan's Quality Assurance@Penn State: Process & Outcomes


Published on

SLN SOLsummit 2009 presenttion by Larry Ragan.
This session will explore the process to adapt the Quality Matters rubric for quality assurance to the Penn State system.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Larry Ragan's Quality Assurance@Penn State: Process & Outcomes

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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”
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. Act 4: Mapping from QM to QA • Identified several issues of implementing QM at PSU – Size, number and volume – Costs – Desired intent
  6. 6. 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.”
  7. 7. 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.
  8. 8. 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.
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Q&A • Questions? • Thoughts? • Ideas?
  14. 14. For Additional Information Contacts: Cathy Holsing - Larry Ragan - Ann Taylor -