http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 1

Quality Matters: A FIPSE Quality Matters: A FIPSE project for Peer Course Reviewproject for Peer Course Review

A Grant Initiative of MarylandOnline Sponsored by the

U.S. Department of Education

Fund for the Improvement of Secondary Education (FIPSE)

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 2

Mary Wells(Co-Director)Prince George’s Community College, MDWellsML@pgcc.edu

Dr. Chris Sax(Co-Director)University of Maryland, University Collegecsax@umuc.edu

Dr. Joan McMahon (Process Committee Co-Chair)Towson University, MDmcmahon@towson.edu

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 3

FIPSE is competitive

• 1550 preliminary applications

• 150 invited to submit proposal

• 42 funded projects (<3 %)

Quality Matters!

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 4

Inter-Institutional Sharing

Maryland Online (MOL) is a statewide consortium of 10 Maryland community colleges and senior institutions that share courses.

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 5

Quality Matters: Key Outcomes

• Replicable pathway for inter-institutional quality assurance (QA) of online courses

• Faculty-centered, peer review-based, consortium-wide QA process

• Review tools that incorporate nationally recognized standards of best practice

• F2F and online training

• Expanded resource sharing and increased articulation agreements

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 6

FIPSE Award: $509,177

Available: September 2003

Term: 3 Years (9/03 -6/06)

Fiscal Agent: Prince George’s Community College (MD)

Web Site: http://www.qualitymatters.org

Quality Matters: Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 7

What this process is NOT

• Not about an individual instructor (it’s about the course)

• Not about faculty evaluation (it’s about course quality)

• Not about “winners” and “losers” (it’s about continuous improvement in a supportive environment)

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 8

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

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 9

Quality Matters

How do we …

– identify & recognize it?

• Determine the Criteria of the Reviewers?

• Develop a Rubric on Quality?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 10

Session Objectives• Develop a rubric by:

– Examining different brands of cookies.– Determining the criteria for review.– Setting the standards for the review.

• Reflect on the process of determining quality issues and standards.

• Project the implications for the process in online course review.

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 11

Develop a Rubric

1. Determine the criteria of the reviewer– You must have had some

experience in eating.

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 12

2. Examine the “goods.”

– Open the different bags of chocolate chip cookies.

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 13

3. Establish the weighted criteria of the “goods”. These are your standards.

• What are the criteria?• What weight will you

give each criteria?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 14

4. Rate and rank the “goods.”

• How did you test the cookies for the quality indicators?

• How were your criteria results recorded?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 15

5. Revise the criteria • What criteria were the main differentials? Or the “deal breakers?”

• What insights did you have about the criteria development/rating process?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 16

The Reflection

1. How did your group achieve consensus on the ratings?2. What were the greatest challenges to arriving at a consensus

ranking?3. How comfortable would you be if you had to defend this

rating before your vice president or before the faculty association?

4. Can your criteria be applied to all such similar items?5. Is this process replicable? Can you use this process for other

quality assurance activities?6. What advice would you give to other quality assurance teams?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 17

Cookies Don’t Just Happen!

• Recipe• Ingredients• Processes• Packaging• Marketing• Seal of Approval

What’s similar to quality online courses?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 18

AnalogyCookies to Online Course Review

Issues Cookies Online Courses

How long was the Time on Task? 15 minutes

Who sets the criteria?

Who determines the weighting standards?

Is it replicable?

Are there subjective vs objective indicators?

What are the “deal breakers?”

How many can be evaluated at each sitting?

What are the experiences of the reviewers?

What were the unifying elements?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 19

Now What?

• What do we do with “quality” courses?

• How do we use our certified peer reviewers?

• How do we tell students what this means?

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 20

Session Evaluation

For grant purposes, please complete the evaluation provided.

And thank you for your interest in the project.

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 21

Additional Information

Please provide your email address if you wish to learn more.

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 22

Additional Slides…

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 23

Quality Matters:QA Process Overview

• Review of online courses by teams of 3 faculty members

• Using Rubric tied to national standards of best practice

• Feedback provided for improvement of course quality

• Instructional design support provided to implement recommendations

• Certification of course when standards met

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 24

Goals for Selecting Courses

• Focus on quality• Continuous improvement• Positive environment• Low-risk• Increase number of

“shareable” courses

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 25

Quality Matters: Courses

• MarylandOnline Shared Course List

• State of MD Critical Workforce Needs:

– Engineering

– Teacher Education

– Information Technology

– General Studies

– Allied Health

http://www.qualitymatters.org/ 26

Quality Matters: Project Management Team

Project Co-Directors

Mary Wells Prince George’s CC

Chris Sax UMUC

Project Management Team

Kay Kane Project Coordinator

Cynthia France Chesapeake College

Jurgen Hilke Frederick CC

Wendy Gilbert MarylandOnline

John Sener Project Evaluator