Overcoming Barriers in Implementing a Quality Assurance Process
WCET 21st Annual Conference
Deb Adair, Quality Matters
Evelyn Everett Knowles, Park University
Li Wang, University of Northern Colorado
Heidi Ashbaugh, Texas Woman’s University
7. Quality Matters Subscribers MONTANA WYOMING IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON NEVADA UTAH CALIFORNIA ARIZONA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA NEBRASKA COLORADO NEW MEXICO TEXAS OKLAHOMA KANSAS ARKANSAS LOUISIANA MISSOURI IOWA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN ILLINOIS INDIANA KENTUCKY TENNESSEE MISS ALABAMA GEORGIA FLORIDA SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA VIRGINIA WV OHIO MICHIGAN NEW YORK PENN MARYLAND DELAWARE NEW JERSEY CONN RI MASS MAINE VT NH ALASKA HAWAII Current Subscribers Statewide Subscribers PUERTO RICO VIRGIN ISLANDS
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. A Model for Enhancing Online Course Development : The Park University Continuous Quality Development Model
13. Continuous Quality Development Model Rapid Growth in Online Learning Culture of Assessment Platform Change / Content Manager Continuous Quality Development Model Collaboration between Faculty and Instructional Designer Quality Matters
14. Development Contract Course Developer Requirements Payment for Development New Online Course Development Initiate Course Development Maintenance Contract Course Maintenance Requirements Payment for Maintenance Online Course Development Policies Limits on the Timing and Number of Courses Developments per Developer Policies Directly Impacting Online Course Development Accessibility and ADA standards and requirements Academic Freedom Full-Time Faculty Contract Online Adjunct Faculty Contract Faculty Course Load Faculty Course Preparation Faculty Evaluation Student Academic Issues Online Attendance and Grades Proctoring for Online Programs Online Course Student Training Academic Policies Operational Policies Information Security Bookstore and Library Institutional Policies
15. Continuous Quality Development Model Literature Research Research Standards Best Practices Course Development Quality Matters Standards Online Course Development CD Requirements & Checklist Quality Matters Rubric Park Online Quality Standards Review QSR University and CDL Policies Academic Department Requirements Park University Requirements Content Approval eCollege capabilities Best Practices
33. Implementing the QM Process at Texas Woman’s University Presented by - Heidi Ashbaugh Sr. Instructional Design Specialist Texas Woman’s University with much input from - Allison Peterson Sr. Instructional Design Specialist Texas Woman’s University
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Hinweis der Redaktion
Quality Matters provides inter-institutional quality assurance in online learning. This is achieved through a not-for-profit subscription service providing tools and training for quality assurance of online courses.
Quality Matters has become a widely adopted program of quality assurance. It currently has more than 370 subscribers across 41 states and Canada. Statewide systems also subscribe to provide coordination and more economical access to QM tools for their member institutions. Please see http://www.qualitymatters.org/Documents/Subscriber%20List%20for%20Publication.pdf for a current list of subscribers. Quality Matters has trained well over 3000 faculty and instructional design staff and has been recently recognized by both the Sloan Consortium and USDLA for excellence.
The map provides another view of the wide-spread adoption of QM. The color red/rust indicates states where there are QM subscribers and yellow indicates statewide subscriptions.
The underlying principles of QM are a primary reason for this wide-spread adoption. Quality Matters provides a faculty-driven, peer review process that is…. Collaborative : QM was designed by and for faculty to share expertise and experience relative to the design of a course. Collegial : The course review process is a collegial discussion between faculty peers committed to Continuous quality improvement. It is not an evaluation. Centered in national standards of best practice, the research literature and instructional design principles designed to promote student learning. The underlying principles of QM are a primary reason for this wide-spread adoption. Quality Matters provides a faculty-driven, peer review process that is…. Collaborative : QM was designed by and for faculty to share expertise and experience relative to the design of a course. Collegial : The course review process is a collegial discussion between faculty peers committed to Continuous quality improvement. It is not an evaluation. Centered in national standards of best practice, the research literature and instructional design principles designed to promote student learning.
The goal of Quality Matters is something all faculty and stakeholders can support – to make online instruction as good as it can be to facilitate student learning. While a QM peer course review quantifies quality as meet QM standards at a minimum of 85%, there are many positive outcomes of implementing QM beyond an improved course design.
Reaching that goal of quality requires schools to have an effective course development process, faculty and instructional design staff trained on the same standards and tools, and a planned process to build institutional capacity to become self-sufficient in the implementation of the process, training, and tools.
This slide introduces the next presenter who will address challenges with implementing a course development process. The presenter is Dr. Evelyn Knowles, Coordinator of Program Quality Development for Park University.
Welcome
Started in 1996 Courses going online Rapid Growth – by 2003 Platform change to eCollege 2004 culture of assessment began because of HLC 2005 Members of KCREACH which introduced us to Quality Matters in Fall 2005 Quality Matters Although we had a good internal course review based on best practices, we decided to adopt Quality Matters rubric because it had national recognition and had more literature research to back it up. Collaboration We hired more instructional designed to collaborate with faculty developers to make the development process smoother.
When we develop courses we have to be aware of many University policies and make sure that the courses are compliant with these policies. For example, the instructional designer verifies that the textbook used in the course is BOTH approved by the department and is ordered by the bookstore. This summer we are beginning to upgrade our courses . . . to the most recent accessibility standards . . . so that students can use screen reader programs such as Jaws to participate in online classes. This will provide Park the ability to serve a wider population of students.
This is a visual representation of the Continuous Quality Course Development Model. As you can see, both the University policies and department requirements, and the Quality Matters standards drive the course development process. We encourage faculty to work with the academic department program coordinator to identify their specific course development needs at the beginning of the course development process: 1) For example, some departments such as Psychology require the home page to contain a link to the PsychBytes web site which contains tutorials on APA formatting. Instructional designers inserted the links into the course home page for all of the online psychology courses. The courses must comply with University policies : 2) For example we support the Assessment initiative by verifying the approved CLOs are implemented in the course and that learning activities and assessments align to the CLOs. The capabilities within the eCollege and technology resources available can also impact course development: 3) For example the platform does not support audio PowerPoint presentations. The instructional designers will convert audio PowerPoints to Flash presentations. We use a checklist as a guide to identify ways to implement these standards and policies when we develop the courses. At the end of course development, the instructional design quality is reviewed using the Quality Matters Rubric and the content is approved by the academic department
To help faculty understand how to apply the standards and implement the University policies, we developed a common course structure and a course development checklist. The common course structure is a basic framework to help students identify where to locate content such as the course textbook information. For example, all courses have a link to the Online Student Help and Resource web site. The checklist is mapped to the standards and policies . For example, one OIES evaluation criteria requires adjuncts to participate in weekly discussions. During course development, the instructional designer verifies that the course design has implemented weekly discussion threads.
Marker : This slide introduces the next presenter who will address challenges with faculty training. The presenter is Dr. Li Wang, an instructional designer from the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at the University of Northern Colorado.
Marker : This slide introduces the challenges identified regarding implementing QM and training at UNC. Awareness: Only a small percentage of instructors had heard about QM at the needs assessment meeting. Time: Online training, face to face training , and continuous dedication are time consuming. Incentives: Currently there is no incentives for instructors who participate except for the Office of Extended Studies Request For Proposal. Retention: Instructors who demonstrate interest at the beginning but drop out later. Collaboration: Only a few instructors are collaborating during the review process.
Marker : This slide introduces the next presenter who will address challenges with implementing a multi-year QM plan. The presenter is Heidi Ashbaugh, senior instructional designer from Texas Woman’s University.
ID philosophical stance is that mandatory participation will limit impact and diffusion with our faculty (many have spent entire career here; little or no exposure to how other institutions conduct business)
The program began through Distance Education with a pilot project to gauge interest in the program. DE has made a deliberate choice to manage the project rather than govern. At conclusion, this will be a faculty driven process facilitated by DE. We currently see no benefit to governing a project we fully intend to give away to faculty. Funding - $12 per credit hour, per student, per course that is designated as DE. This comes directly to the DE office, pays our salaries and is our operating budget. That is on top of tuition and course fees.
![How do you get there from here? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],10/23/2009 Denver, Colorado](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/cusersdebdocumentsdocumentspublicationspresentationsconferenceswcet09wcetpresentationoctober232009-091023175000-phpapp02/85/How-Do-You-Get-There-From-Here-1-320.jpg)
![Presentation Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()