Presentation of a draft rubric for the evaluation of online teacher professional development activities by SACE for endorsement

1. Towards a Quality Framework for
Online Educator Professional
Development Activities
SACE-VVOB partnership
Seminar Online Teacher Professional Development
Centurion, September 29, 2015

2. Outline
1. Context: changing provider landscape
2. What constitutes quality in online learning?
3. Specific character of online courses
4. Scope and Purpose of Rubric
5. Rubric Criteria

3. Context: SACE CPTD System
• Quality assurance of CPTD Activities
– Approval of Providers
– Endorsement of Activities
– Educators collecting PD Points

4. Context: Changing Provider Landscape
A variety of Online Learning modalities
– Distance learning institutions
– OERs
– MOOCs (profit & non-profit)
– Self-study packages
– Resource packages
– Educational games

5. Context: Changing Provider Landscape
Including forms of blended learning

6. What Constitutes Quality in Online Learning?
• Does it support learning?
• Responsibility for learner?
• Measuring quality through user ratings?
• Are our conceptions of quality changing?

7. Specific Character of Online Courses
1. Unprecedented access to ideas and knowledge
2. Online networks and communities of learners
3. Flexibility in time, pace and place
4. Online mentoring
5. Adaptive curriculum
6. Differentiated teaching
7. Unbundling of education
8. Just-in-time and on-demand learning
9. Open access to learning
10.Data Analytics
11.Increased division of labour

8. Scope & Purpose of Rubric
• Scope
– For online and blended CPTD programmes
• Double purpose
– Self-assessment & continuous improvement tool
– Peer review
– Evaluation tool
– Complements existing rubric for f2f activities
• Nature
– Balance comprehensiveness with
ease of use
– Multidimensional conception of
quality
– Dynamic tool

9. Literature Benchmarks
• Existing quality frameworks for online courses:
– EADTU & Open University UK
– University of Illinois
– ICDE
– California State University
– Western Caroline University
– University of Michigan
– University of Southern Mississippi
– European Foundation for Quality in e-Learning (EFQUEL)
– eCampus Alberta
– Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric
– Online Learning Consortium (OLC), US
– Central Washington University

10. Criterion 1: General Information
• Clear information about course aspects
– Goals, outcomes
– Admission requirements
– Study requirements
– Required interaction, communication
– Technical requirements
– Support available
– Outreach efforts
• More important for online courses
– Unfamiliar
– Variation

11. Criterion 2: Accessibility
• How accessible is the course material?
• Various aspects
– Technical accessibility (download times, connectivity, operating
systems, devices, offline options)
– Ease of navigation (links, key words, glossary, table of contents)
– Learners with disabilities (multiple formats, website accessibility
standards, readability)
– Open Access (limited preconditions for enrolment)

12. Criterion 3: Organisation & Structure
• Alignment, build-up of course
• Flexibility in time, pace & place
• Suitable educational approach

13. Criterion 4: Relevance
• Need within teaching profession
– Clear rationale
– Goals, objectives and outcomes
– Target group
– Application to school practice

14. Criterion 5: Learning & Teaching Support Materials
• Designed for learning purpose
– Independent and flexible learning
– Promote interactivity
• Aspects
– Content
– Design
– Language
– Layout
– Avoidance of stereotypes
– Copyright & openness

15. Criterion 6: Design of Learning Activities
• Selection and sequence of activities in order to maximize
learning.
• Aspects
– Clear and concise description
– Variety
– Role of instructor
– Design for participant interaction
and engagement

16. Criterion 7: Assessment
• Alignment with learning outcomes
– Integral part of learning process
– Criteria for face-to-face activities
– Balance formative and summative assessment tasks
– Appropriately timed, varied and relevant
• Information provision
– Novel ways of assessment
– More extensive data available
• Authentication
– Impersonation
– Plagiarism
– Develop study skills

17. Criterion 8: Selection of Technology
• Selection in function of learning outcomes
• Promote learner engagement & active learning
• Readily obtainable & current
• External tools
– Privacy policies

18. Criterion 9: Data Protection & Privacy
• Use of participant data
– Third parties
– Informed consent
– Learning analytics
• Data security
– Rise in cyber crime
– Password protection, encryption,
– Power protection, backup solutions

19. Criterion 10: Participant Support
• Essential component
• Variety of channels
– Tutors
– Co-learners
– Helpdesk
– Resources
• Support includes:
– Technical support
– Study skills support
– Administrative support
– Instructional support
– Follow-up support

20. Criterion 11: Monitoring & Evaluation
• Use of participant feedback & data
• Institutional assessment procedures
– Review of standards
– Operational aspects
– Participant retention

21. 11 Quality Criteria
1. General information
2. Accessibility
3. Organisation & Structure
4. Relevance
5. Learning & teaching support
materials
6. Design of learning activities
7. Assessment
8. Selection of technology
9. Data protection & privacy
10.Participant support
11.Course evaluation

22. Conclusions
• Mandate of SACE includes quality assurance of CPTD
activities, including online activities
• Quality as multi-dimensional construct
• Online CPTD activities require specific quality criteria
• Refining over time through co-construction
– “All of us are smarter than any of us”
– Complement with examples of good practice

23. Questions
• Stefaan Vande Walle, Stefaan.vandewalle@vvob.be
• This presentation is available on Slideshare:
• Include link