Presentation to SLATE Conference, Chicago, October 22, 2010

1. Implementing QM at North Park University Online

2. What is Quality Matters? http://www.qmprogram.org/ A quality assurance process to increase student retention, learning and satisfaction in online and hybrid courses by implementing better course design Faculty-centered Research-based Adopted by hundreds of higher education institutions across forty-two states, Canada, Australia and Bermuda

4. Fiscally responsible

6. More of a faculty review process than a process imposed by a university department

8. Need to Ensure Quality (con’t) Trained 2 faculty members to function as Review chairs Development course facilitators Online and hybrid mentors

9. North Park’s Online Development Course Consists of 3 Modules Based on ADDIE course design model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) Online format; faculty members as students Constant communication with faculty Incorporates material from QM rubric throughout

10. 3 Modules

13. QM Rubrics with tie-in to course

14. Module 3: Building course content in CMS Internal reviews of new online and hybrid courses As the last step in Module 3 Review starts 6 weeks before start of term Completed by a team of 3 QM-trained reviewers 2 ODL staff – team members 1 faculty member – team chair

15. Module 3 (con’t) Internal reviews of repeat online and hybrid courses Faculty with 3-year-old courses will participate As a last step in Module 3 Review starts 6 weeks before start of term Completed by a team of 3 QM-trained reviewers 2 ODL staff – team members 1 faculty member – team chair

16. Findings: Positives Encourages faculty buy-in Rubric is based on research Process is ongoing Criteria is standardized for reviews Guides development of new courses Outlines expectations before review Provides design ideas Supports consistency in quality

17. Findings: Positives (con’t) Faculty member as team review chair aids in communication Encourages peer-to-peer discussions Can provide tried-and-true ideas

18. Findings: Positives (con’t) Online QM rubric tool saves time Instructor worksheets in one accessible area Rubric includes annotations and space for additional notes All final rubrics merged at the end Course amendment form History of reviews saved online

19. Findings: Positives (con’t) After going through development process and internal review, courses are high quality Per internal peer reviewers Per comparison to QM managed reviews

20. Findings: Challenges Online QM rubric tool not always utilized by faculty Separate site location Separate login than all other university tools Faculty often fall back on email

21. Findings: Challenges (con’t) Not all courses meet standards 1st time Professors feel frustrated Repeat course creators don’t understand why past courses were fine (before QM) Professors don’t see that this is an ongoing process (not a pass/fail situation)

22. Findings: Challenges (con’t) Why courses don’t meet standards Repeat professors don’t always follow all steps that match to rubric Content in “final” course can be different than originally reviewed content submitted in the development process Facilitator of faculty development course and reviewers have differing opinions

24. Wording in development course

26. Jenny Henrikson jhenrikson@northpark.edu Sonja Strahl sstrahl@northpark.edu Email for temporary access to our Faculty Development course or with any questions Presentation on www.slideshare.net