Quality does matter
As is typical, I’ve been thinking a lot recently about
quality in online courses. It’s usually
on my mind in part because it’s my job, and because I hold teaching and
learning, and access to learning as integral to my philosophy. I often find
myself reflecting on what I know that we do at our university and what I want
us to do. I really believe that we can
do better and frequently have ideas for how.
Of course, university politics and process usually slow me down.
A few years ago our institution finally adopted the QualityMatters ™ (QM) standards for online and hybrid courses.
I advocated often for adoption, to our faculty governance council, to our administrators who influence or make these decisions, and to faculty who
had more influence than I in such matters.
Now a few years later, we are members, but not much further in
implementing these standards across the university.
Quality Matters™ is, in my
thinking, the closest thing to national standards for online course development
that we have. It was created by higher
education faculty members for higher education faculty members, initially as
part of a FIPSE grant. Now, as a copyrighted and subscription based program,
the QM organization continues to engage higher education faculty in the 3-year
cycle of reviewing and updating the standards.
Most valuable to me is that they also publish the bibliography that
informs each standard and sub-standard. (Also see
A little history
Through most of the dozen-or-so years that I’ve been an
instructional designer and part-time faculty member at our institution, I’ve been
one of a few leaders in what has turned out to be a mostly grass roots effort
to engage faculty in the development and teaching of online courses. At one point, I organized a group of faculty
from various disciplines who were teaching online courses. Our university’s online course offerings were
still emerging and no fully online programs were offered yet. In trying to gauge the external and internal
environment, and anticipating changes in how our administration thought and how
they would be influenced by cultural and economic shifts, I proactively
suggested that our group, the Webslingers, develop our own guidelines for
quality in online courses.
The process was worthwhile, if not a bit difficult at
times. The faculty received no
acknowledgement for participating in this group, so adding one more thing to
their list made it challenging to complete the process. But we did.
We modeled it after several rubrics that were already developed and
available from other colleges and universities.
I was thankful that they went before us!
What we all learned is that the essential elements of quality are
consistent across institutions. Some had
elements not held by others, and some phrased similar things differently, but what
all considered as integral to quality aligned with what we already
promoted. That was not a surprise, but
still reassuring.
Although it took a few years longer than I anticipated, I
was right about the impending interest and administrative support for online
and hybrid courses.
The approved additions to the faculty handbook included a
charge for faculty governance to establish a council with a remit to recommend
policy and review online course proposals.
Early in their formation I suggested that they consider the adoption of
official standards, and presented to them the QM program. It was too soon in their responsibilities and
learning to understand what I was proposing and my suggestion was met with pessimism and was tabled for an unforeseen
time.
Those of us in higher education know that sometimes the only
way to get things done is to work behind-the-scenes to gain support. I talked it up to anyone who would
listen. It took about a year, but I was
finally invited back to the faculty council to discuss QM. I presented the history, an earlier version
of the full rubric that was available, and, I felt most importantly, the
literature that QM provides that informs each and every standard. By the end, we finally had consensus that this
would be the formal recommendation, and shortly thereafter, we became institutional
members.
Our QM rollout is, in my impatient mind, painfully slow
because of the same factors that kept us from earlier adoption. A draft of our proposed plan for a formal
rollout was tabled over a year ago and has not yet been resurrected. Where once we could see a need and simply
address it, we are now bound by faculty governance approval.
Responding to our
implementation reality
The Instructional Design team here started by participating in
the online QM training. Each of us has
completed between 1-3 QM workshops, moving towards Master Reviewer status, and eventually to Facilitator Certification. Our attempt at moving the institution forward
began with offering introductory sessions on what QM is including why we adopted
it. Our next step were Faculty Teaching
Circles. We have had a few departments
request and receive grants for an Instructional Designer facilitated Teaching
Circle. We have additional requests
coming forward. The grants have so far
been department specific, and this works well because of the way it builds
community and mentorship from within each unit. My
attempt to offer an academic year First-Friday series has not yet been
successful due to low enrollment - all from the same department. A Teaching Circle is in the works for
them.
I hope that we will receive additional support to move
forward with more of the formal opportunities that the QM membership
offers. I am, however, quite certain it
will not happen in the timeframe that I want.
Higher Education operates on its own time!
Thanks for checking in,
Glenna
04/22/14
References
Legon, R., & Runyon, J. (2007). Research on the impact of the Quality Matters course review process. Presentation at the 23rd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/07_5284.pdf
Pollacia, L., Russell, J., & Russell, B.
(2009). Developing an online program in computer information systems
using Quality Matters standards. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 5 (2), 304-315. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/pollacia_0609.htm
04/22/14
No comments:
Post a Comment