Derekc/Teaching and Learning/Quality Assurance For Online
These guys have some good frameworks
- Quality Assurance for Online Courses: Implementing Policy at RMIT by Carmel McNaught: http://technologysource.org/article/quality_assurance_for_online_courses/
- Kenny Article: Promoting Quality Outcomes in Higher Education Using New Learning Technologies: Processes and Plans at RMIT http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/john_kenny.pdf
Summary from RMIT McNaught Above
- Evidence of educational design. All online courses (no matter how minor the online component) need to be signed off at the faculty level by each faculty's Director of Teaching Quality (DoTQ). For sign-off to occur and enable a course to become "live" on the DLS, the DoTQ needs evidence of clear educational design and planning. DoTQs ensure that an academic teacher has considered the design features of an online system, has an overall rationale for their courses, and complies with basic publishing standards (including copyright matters). DoTQs also assess the level of coherence between RMIT's Course Guide (which includes information relating to course details, learning outcomes, planned student learning experiences, assessment, and study program), its Online Checklist, and the online component of the course.
- Evidence of peer review. The main purpose of the peer review sessions is to produce evidence that peer scrutiny can improve the quality of online courses. The scholarship of teaching is an important concept at RMIT, and we are anxious to encourage scholarly peer review of aspects of teaching in ways similar to the peer review of research outputs. A report of the decision made at peer review sessions is required. The DoTQs manage this peer review process but this evidence is also examined by a senior person in Learning Technology Services (LTS) on behalf of the chair of the university’s Programs Committee.
- Evidence of forward thinking through an evaluation plan. The RMIT requirement to have an evaluation plan indicates the significance the institution places on ongoing quality improvement. The plan outlines what evaluation strategies are to be used once the course is being taught to students. As with the peer reviews, the process is managed by the DoTQs but reviewed by LTS as well.
Note: here (in point 3) I am reminded of the OTARA model
Quality standards for e-learning There are arguments for and against introducing a set of quality standards specific to virtual education for New Zealand providers. In favour of the proposition, it could be argued that virtual education is such a new phenomenon that all stakeholders require greater assurance of its quality than might be delivered by existing medium-neutral standards and system. It could also be argued that, as virtual education has opened up a global educational market, international students will be looking to compare virtual providers with one another, rather than finding any assurance in a comparison of institutional providers within a particular nation or jurisdiction.
Against the argument, it can be claimed that quality standards should related to core educational processes and learning outcomes rather than focus on the matter of delivery medium. An equally powerful argument is that ‘online learning’ is an ill-defined activity, and that a set of quality standards applying to any particular definition of this mode will not be applicable to variations of the mode. For example: a ‘standard’ relating to the presentation of study material online is unlikely to be applicable to a programme which restricts its online activity to interaction with students.
On balance, the Group finds that the approach being taken by the various quality assurance agencies for the tertiary sector are appropriate for the purposes of institutional accreditation, programme approval, and ongoing audit of quality. This approach has been to expect an online programme to meet all the standards applying to more conventional modes of delivery, but to alert both providers and quality auditors to the particular challenges posed to quality by the online mode.
Recommendation: that existing accreditation and quality assurance agencies be expected to apply their normal standards to programmes offered online, modifying these standards only where necessary to meet the particular characteristics of the online mode.
Quality Matters (TM)
Website for Quality matters
- Rubric Quality Matters Rubric Standards 2008-2010 edition with Assigned Point Values
- Sloan C Report Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning Kay Kane, QM Project Coordinator
Quote from presentation:
- Not about an individual instructor - (it’s about the course design)
- Not about faculty evaluation - (it’s about course quality)
- Not a win/lose, pass/fail test - (it’s about a continuous improvement process in a supportive environment)
"Quality assurance is a difficult concept to discuss because everyone's picture of quality varies" (Ehmann-C) and this is particularly true of online learning. Each institution needs to define what it finds valuable about online learning and ensure its quality assurance policies and procedures support these. We have suggested some quality attributes of online learning and most of these focus on a student or learner centred approach to learning. Online methods offer the opportunity to integrate the quality mechanisms and processes into the design, development and delivery of the learning, minimising the administrative burden on teaching staff and providing information which is of direct benefit to them and their students.
- A review: http://www.elearning-reviews.org/topics/quality/quality-elearning/2006-quality-assurance-best-practices-online-programs/
- Podcast (Educause) E2005 Podcast: Defining and Implementing Quality Assurance Standards for Online Courses
- Manual Uses WebCT
Huge site: UTAS http://tlo.calt.utas.edu.au/about/whatis_otl.aspx