1. Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning A Grant Initiative of MarylandOnline Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)

2. FIPSE Interested Because … Quality assurance of courses is important Voluntary inter-institutional assurance has never been done before This can serve as a national model Quality Matters!

3. Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning

4. MarylandOnline Statewide, inter-segmental consortium, dedicated to championing distance learning in Maryland Partners: 14 community colleges, 5 senior institutions Goals –Sponsor state-of-the-art home page & Web gateway for online higher education in Maryland –Conduct statewide faculty technology training for online teaching & online course development –Initiate and facilitate online course and program sharing & collaborations among member institutions –Provide statewide leadership in distance education and promote members’ interests

5. Peer Course Review Feedback Course Course Meets Quality Expectations Course Revision Instructional Designers Institutions CAO’s AR’s Faculty Course Developers National Standards & Research Literature Rubric Faculty Reviewers Training Course Peer Review Process

6. For Our Purposes, Quality Is… More than average; more than “good enough” An attempt to capture what’s expected in an effective online course Based on research and widely accepted standards Higher Standard 100 50 0

7. Rubric Based in research literature Based on nationally recognized standards of best practice Used by review teams to: –assess course quality in 8 key areas (40 elements) –provide feedback to faculty course developer –provide guidance to instructional design support team

8. Eight Key Areas for Review Course Overview & Introduction Learning Objectives Resources & Materials Learner Interaction Course Technology Learner Support Assessment & Measurement ADA Compliance Demo: http://www.esac.org/fdi/rubric/finalsurvey/demorubric.asphttp://www.esac.org/fdi/rubric/finalsurvey/demorubric.asp

9. Rubric Scoring StandardsPointsRelative Value 143Essential 122Very Important 141Important TOTALS 4080 Team of three reviewers One score per standard based on majority Two criteria to meet quality expectations: “Yes” to all 14 Essential Standards Receive at least a total of 68 points

10. More Information www.QualityMatters.org Project Co-Directors Chris Sax csax@umuc.edu Mary Wells mwells@pgcc.edu Project Management Team Wendy Gilbertgilbertwa@comcast.net (MarylandOnline) Kay Kane kkane@pgcc.edu

11. Major Project Themes assure & improve course quality positively impact student learning faculty-centered activities build consensus replicable, reliable, and scalable processes foster sharing of materials and expertise create opportunities for training and professional development

12. What’s In It For Institutions … participation in high-profile national project raise QA as a priority activity gain access to a sustainable, replicable, scalable QA process strengthens institution’s accreditation package inform online course training & practices positively impact MOL course sharing positively impact articulation agreements provide professional development activities

13. What’s In It For Faculty … improve your online course quality assurance expand professional community chance to review other courses gain new ideas for your own course participation useful for annual evaluations, promotion applications, professional development plan/requirements $150 for each completed peer course review

15. Review Teams Teams composed of 3 faculty: 1 from home institution, 2 from others 1 from same discipline, 2 from others mix of CC & 4 yr schools mix of large & small schools mix of public & private schools

16. Year 1 Accomplishments Created & piloted peer review tools, process Trained 55 peer reviewers who reviewed 6 courses in pilot Selected 13 courses & 45 peer reviewers for fall 04 Insured replicability, scalability, and sustainability at all steps and in all tools Initiated transfer to MOL Operated successfully on consensus agreement model

17. Lessons Learned from Year 1 QM is part of an on-going process; course review is not the first step in this process –Must address and minimize faculty anxiety prior to review –Need for faculty training at individual institutions during course design and prior to implementing a review process –Need for pre-course development checklist tied to rubric Approach to the Rubric and the Review process needs to be holistic Multiple & complex processes, procedures, policies, and forms needed

18. Lessons Learned from Year 1 Shift mindset from “pass/fail” to continuous quality improvement Contingency plans needed at every step Importance of Distributed Leadership Model Critical elements: –Institutional buy-in & representation –On-going, meaningful communication

19. Year 2 Plans Develop online rubric training Achieve consensus through CAO ratification of the QM process Promote the integration of the quality assurance process within institutions Strategic planning –for the transition to MOL & sustainability of activities after the grant –for replicability and incorporation of grant activities into standard practice within MOL institutions Actively involve the Advisory Board and external partners Assess the impact on student learning

20. Project Management Team Project Co-Directors –Mary WellsPrince George’s CC –Chris SaxUMUC Project Management Team –Kay Kane Project Coordinator –Cynthia FranceChesapeake College –Jurgen Hilke Frederick CC –Wendy GilbertMarylandOnline –John SenerProject Evaluator