North Park University is implementing Quality Matters (QM), a faculty-centered, research-based program for quality assurance in online courses. It has trained staff and faculty to review courses using QM rubrics. It offers a online development course for faculty to learn the QM process. Preliminary findings show benefits like standardized reviews, guidance for course design, and peer discussions. Challenges include some faculty not fully utilizing the online tools or meeting standards on first review. Future plans include revising the development course based on needs assessment and improved recognition for faculty who complete the process.

1. Implementing QM at North Park University Online

2. What is Quality Matters? http://www.qmprogram.org/A quality assurance process to increase student retention, learning and satisfaction in online and hybrid courses by implementing better course designFaculty-centeredResearch-basedAdopted by hundreds of higher education institutions across forty-two states, Canada, Australia and Bermuda

3. Why Subscribe to QM?Required growth in online and hybrid programs

4. Fiscally responsible

5. Solid quality assurance in online and hybrid courses – research-based and widely acceptedWhy Subscribe to QM? (con’t)Accreditation’s increasing focus on assessment of student learning

6. More of a faculty review process than a process imposed by a university department

7. Networking opportunitiesNeed to Ensure QualityTrained 2 Office of Distributed Learning (ODL) staff to function asCourse reviewersDevelopment course facilitatorsOnline and hybrid mentors

8. Need to Ensure Quality (con’t)Trained 2 faculty members to function asReview chairsDevelopment course facilitators Online and hybrid mentors

9. North Park’s Online Development Course Consists of 3 ModulesBased on ADDIE course design model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation)Online format; faculty members as studentsConstant communication with facultyIncorporates material from QM rubric throughout

10. 3 Modules

13. QM Rubrics with tie-in to course

14. Module 3: Building course content in CMSInternal reviews of new online and hybrid coursesAs the last step in Module 3Review starts 6 weeks before start of termCompleted by a team of 3 QM-trained reviewers2 ODL staff – team members1 faculty member – team chair

15. Module 3 (con’t)Internal reviews of repeat online and hybrid coursesFaculty with 3-year-old courses will participateAs a last step in Module 3Review starts 6 weeks before start of termCompleted by a team of 3 QM-trained reviewers2 ODL staff – team members1 faculty member – team chair

16. Findings: PositivesEncourages faculty buy-inRubric is based on researchProcess is ongoing Criteria is standardized for reviewsGuides development of new coursesOutlines expectations before reviewProvides design ideasSupports consistency in quality

17. Findings: Positives (con’t)Faculty member as team review chair aids in communicationEncourages peer-to-peer discussionsCan provide tried-and-true ideas

18. Findings: Positives (con’t)Online QM rubric tool saves timeInstructor worksheets in one accessible areaRubric includes annotations and space for additional notesAll final rubrics merged at the endCourse amendment formHistory of reviews saved online

19. Findings: Positives (con’t)After going through development process and internal review, courses are high qualityPer internal peer reviewersPer comparison to QM managed reviews

20. Findings: ChallengesOnline QM rubric tool not always utilized by facultySeparate site locationSeparate login than all other university toolsFaculty often fall back on email

21. Findings: Challenges (con’t)Not all courses meet standards 1st time Professors feel frustratedRepeat course creators don’t understand why past courses were fine (before QM)Professors don’t see that this is an ongoing process (not a pass/fail situation)

22. Findings: Challenges (con’t)Why courses don’t meet standardsRepeat professors don’t always follow all steps that match to rubricContent in “final” course can be different than originally reviewed content submitted in the development processFacilitator of faculty development course and reviewers have differing opinions

23. Future PlansReorganization of the development course based onNeeds assessmentQM team brainstormingUpdated research on other school’s programsReview of team communication