Distance Education Faculty

You are here: TWU Home > Distance Education > DE Faculty >Quality Matters Pilot Project

DE QM™ Pilot Project

Overview

Year One (Spring 2007)
For the spring semester, ten faculty members will receive training on the QM™ rubric and process and be eligible to become MOL certified reviewers. Each faculty member, using expertise within project participants and Lifelong Learning will redesign an existing online course. This redesign, limited to one semester, will focus on the essential categories outlined in the QM rubric. Using skills learned through the QM process, project participants will review these modified courses. Participants will provide data to Lifelong Learning about the application of this process to TWU.

Year Two (Fall 2007)
Year two of the project will add 25 faculty members. Faculty will receive training on the QM Rubric and be eligible to become MOL certified reviewers. This phase of the project will run from September 2007 – August 2008. Faculty will redesign one course to meet all standards found in the QM rubric. Participants will also review another course, according to the QM review process.

Year Three (Fall 2008)
Year three of the project will add 35 faculty members. Faculty will receive training on the QM Rubric and be eligible to become MOL certified reviewers. This phase of the project will run from September 2008 – August 2009. Faculty will redesign one course to meet all standards found in the QM rubric. Participants will also review another course, according to the QM review process.

Background

The Quality Matters™ (QM) project, sponsored by MarylandOnline, Inc. (MOL) developed a rubric to guide the development and revision of online courses and a peer-based approach to quality assurance in online education. The QM rubric and process are based on national standards of best practice for distance learning, review of literature on online courses, and sound instructional design principles. Unique to the QM process is the faculty-driven, collegial review process and the emphasis on continuous quality improvement. The QM process is not an evaluation process; it is a collegial review process. As such, the course developer is a part of the review team and process.

Critical course components are reviewed according to the QM rubric by the review team.  The QM rubric is comprised of 40 standards assigned different point values based upon relative importance. 14 of the standards are considered essential in a quality online course. This is reflected by the highest point value (3) in the rubric. For a course to attain recognition, it must meet all of these essential standards and meet a percentage of the remaining standards. The remaining standards are assigned one or two points in the rubric. Courses are reviewed by a team of three reviewers. Participants will also meet monthly with others in the project and staff from Lifelong Learning.

Eligibility

Faculty (full/part time, visiting) serving as instructors of record (current or past) in distance learning courses are eligible to apply for the program. Full time faculty currently teaching distance learning courses will be given preference over other appointments.

Criteria

• Prior training in online teaching
• Online teaching experience
  • More than two semesters teaching online course(s)
  • Taught online within the last 18 months

Project Requirements

• Participants are required to attend and participate in the QM Online Peer Reviewer Training (3 week course – estimated time per week = 5-7 hours)
• Participants will meet monthly with others in the project (face-to-face, online, and videoconference) and staff from Lifelong Learning
• Each participant is expected to modify one of their existing online courses
  • Minimum modification criteria (Year 1)
    • Existing course to be redesigned to address all 3-point essential review elements found in the rubric (14 total), essential for certification by MOL.
      • This will generate 42/80 points necessary for meeting the expectations of the QM review process.
• Minimum modification criteria (Year 2)
• Existing course to be redesigned to address all review elements found in the rubric (40 total), essential for certification by MOL.
• This will generate 80/80 points necessary for meeting the expectations of the QM review process.
• Minimum modification criteria (Year 3)
• Existing course to be redesigned to address all review elements found in the rubric (40 total), essential for certification by MOL.
• This will generate 80/80 points necessary for meeting the expectations of the QM review process.
• Each participant will collaborate and support other project participants through monthly meetings.
• Each participant will review a minimum of one other course
• Participants will provide data, as requested by Lifelong Learning

Benefits to Participants

• Support to redesign existing online course (project peers & Lifelong Learning)
• Development of personal critical assessment skills for examining online courses and materials
• Support the University’s commitment to excellence in teaching
• Opportunity to work with others with similar interests for support and feedback
• Opportunity to be trained as a QM Peer Reviewer
• Supporting Resources
  • Lifelong Learning will provide funding for training as a QM peer-reviewer
  • Lifelong Learning will provide a total of $400 in additional support per participant for travel or materials.
    • Lifelong Learning will provide limited travel support to attend conferences/symposia to reinforce skills for teaching and learning in online environments.
    • Lifelong Learning will provide limited funds to purchase equipment to support distance education classes.

Project Timeline

Year Two

Application

Faculty interested in this opportunity will need to fill out the online application.

Additional Resources

Quality Matters Website

Research Literature and Standards Sets Support for Quality Matters Review Standards

Underlying Principles of Quality Matters

Comparison of the Quality Matters Rubric to Accreditation Standards for Distance Learning

Quality Matters Peer Review Training

Quality Matters Rubric