Quality without a Prescription
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•301 views
This document discusses the need for a new framework to evaluate quality in online courses. It notes that current quality evaluation processes do not account for differences across disciplines and institutions or varying faculty skill levels. The document proposes developing a new framework using a formative research method, including creating sample cases, collecting and analyzing data, and revising the framework. It would aim to provide pedagogical flexibility, support teaching and learning quality, and necessary skills. The framework could offer support for quality in a flexible, evolving way that improves efficiency and reduces burden while using a common language for designers and faculty. It could help increase quality and demonstrate standards on a global scale. The document promotes this new framework called CourseQ.
Recommended
More Related Content
More from Mike Berta
More from Mike Berta (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Quality without a Prescription
- 1. Michael Berta, Ed.D. Daemen College QUALITY WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION Niagara University Conference on Teaching and Learning January 2014 /drmikeberta @mikeberta mberta@daemen.edu
- 2. 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 6,000,000 6,500,000 7,000,000 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Online Course Enrollments Allen & Seaman (2008) (2009) (2010) (2011) (2012)
- 3. The Problem Quality Concerns Increased Oversight Inadequate Institutional Systems Course Delivery Unaddressed Rigid Quality Structures Austin, 2010; Battin-Little, 200; Endean, et. al., 2010; Forsyth, et. al., 2010; Hoskins, 2009; Kee Meng & Mayadas, 2010; Picciano, 2009; Pollocia & McAllister, 2009; Postek, et. al, 2010; P. S. Smith, 2011; Westerfelt, 2011; Wickersham & McElhany, 2010; Vardi, 2012
- 4. Quality evaluation processes for distance education do not account for the complex differences in pedagogical approaches across disciplines or institutions and do not support the variety of skill levels and needs amongst faculty. Endean et al., 2010; Forsyth et al., 2010; Picciano, 2009; Postek et al., 2010; P. S. Smith, 2011; Westerfelt, 2011
- 5. 5. Develop Framework 1. Create a Sample Case 3. Revise 2. Collect and Analyze 4. Repeat Formative Research Method (Reigeluth & Frick, 1999; Reigeluth, 2009)
- 6. RQ 1 RQ 2RQ 3 Appeal EffectivenessEase of Use
- 7. Pedagogical Flexibility Teaching and Learning Quality Support and Necessary Skills Framework Organization Comprehensiveness
- 8. Support for Quality •Flexible •Evolving Improved Efficiency •Reduced burden •Easy to use Collaborative •Common Language •Designers and Faculty Globalization •Increased quality •Demonstration of standards IMPLICATIONS FOR LEADERS CourseQ™
Editor's Notes
- Welcome and Agenda Committee Introduction, Acknowledgements, and Thank You The Problem Research Methodology Findings RQ 1 - Appeal RQ 2 - Effectiveness RQ 3 – Efficiency/Ease of Use Implications for Leaders What’s Next Committee Questions References for Review
- Growth 6.1mm Students in Fall 2010 (Allen & Seaman, 2011) MOOCs (Vardi, 2012) Quality Concerns Despite growth administrators and faculty continue to express concern about quality (Austin, 2010; Endean, Bin, & Ruo, 2010; Forsyth, Pizzica, Laxton, & Mahony, 2010; Hoskins, 2009; Kee Meng & Mayadas, 2010; Picciano, 2009; P. S. Smith, 2011; Westerfelt, 2011; Wickersham & McElhany, 2010) Quality is a concern throughout the Higher Education Sector (Harvey & Williams, 2010) Increased Oversight External stakeholders are demanding more oversight and regulations are tightening (P. S. Smith, 2011) Inadequate Systems Instructional quality usually falls to faculty but this creates disparity within the school (Smith, 2011) Traditional systems can’t adequately address the quickly evolving field of online education (Endean, et. al., 2010; Smith, 2011) Technology-based systems would enhance the schools ability to deal with evolving and demanding quality issues (Postek, et. al, 2010; Smith, 2011) Course Delivery Unaddressed Sloan-C and Quality Matters address quality in distance education but fail to account for quality at the course delivery level (Battin-Little, 2009, Pollocia & McAllister, 2009; Westerfelt, 2011) Rigid Structures Evaluation instruments tend to be rigid and limit assessors (Forsyth, et. al., 2010) To encourage faculty to adopt quality measures instruments should be flexible and allow for variances while still assuring quality delivery (Forsyth et al., 2010; Picciano, 2009; P. S. Smith, 2011; Wickersham & McElhany, 2010)
- Create a case in supporting the new instructional design framework. Collect and analyze formative data. Revise the instructional design framework. Repeat steps two and three until the research reaches a point of saturation. Fully develop the tentative instructional design framework The Formative Research study method is implemented with a group of participants in a collaborative experience to find and develop enhancements of instructional design theories, models, or frameworks (Reigeluth & Frick, 1999). The method is appropriately applied to curricular quality in higher education. Instructional quality is improved when instructors and supporting administration collaborate on solving issues related to course quality (Daukilas et al., 2008; Jordens & Zepke, 2009).