Session 2

Session 2 Assignment: 

 Quality Matters (QM 6-12) Rubric:

Comprised of 8 general and 41 specific standards

1.     Overall design of the course is made clear to the student at the beginning of the course.

2.     Learning objectives are clearly stated and explained.

3.     Assessment strategies use established ways to measure effective learning, evaluate student progress by reference to stated learning objectives, and are designed o be integral to the learning process.

4.     Instructional materials are authoritative, up-to-date and appropriately chosen for the level of the course.

5.     Meaningful interaction between the teacher and students, among students, and between students and course materials is employed to motivate students and foster intellectual commitment and personal development.

6.     Course navigation features and the technology employed in the course foster student engagement and ensure access to instructional materials and resources.

7.     The course facilitates student access to institutional services essential to student success.

8.     The face-to-face and online course components are accessible to all students.

9.     Compliance standard (optional)

Quality Matters (QM) Rubric Standard:

Comprised of 8 general and 41 specific standards

1.     Course Overview and Introduction

2.     Learning Objectives

3.     Assessment and Measurement

4.     Instructional Materials

5.     Learner Interaction and Engagement

6.     Course Technology

7.     Learner Support

8.     Accessibility

California State University, Chico Rubric for Online Instruction (CSU Chico):

Comprised of 6 general standards

1.     Learner Support and Resources

2.     Online Organization and Design

3.     Instructional Design and Delivery

4.     Assessment and Evaluation of Student Learning

5.     Innovative Teaching with Technology

6.     Faculty Use of Student Feedback

Blackboard Exemplary Course Program (ECP)

Comprised of 4 standards

1.     Course Design

a.     Goals and Objectives

b.     Content Presentation

c.     Learner Engagement

d.     Technology Use

2.     Interaction and Collaboration

3.     Assessment

4.     Learner Support

a.     Orientation to Course and CMS

b.     Supportive Software (Plug-ins)

c.     Instructor Role and Information

d.     Course/Institutional Policies and Support

e.     Technical Accessibility Issues

f.      Accommodations for Disabilities

g.     Feedback

Online Instruction Rubric Comparison
	Course Design	Learning Objectives	Assessment	Technology	Learner Support	Instructional Materials	Learner Engagement	Accessibility	Compliance (Optional)
QM 6-12	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
QM	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
ECP	√	included	√	included	√	included	√	included
CSU Chico	√	included	√	√	√	√	√	included

*An “included” means item is not a separate standard but it is included or incorporated in another standard.

Overall, the four different online instruction rubrics shared a great deal in terms of incorporating similar standards in a rubric for an online course. In review, I discovered that all four rubrics included all 8 standards of course design, learning objectives, assessment, technology, learning support, instructional materials, learner engagement, and accessibility outlined on the Quality Matters website. Even though ECP and CSU Chico did not list standards like: learning objectives and accessibility (among others) individually, those standards were left out of the rubric but instead reflected in other standards. For example, the first standard of ECP not only included course design but it also incorporated standards like technology use and learning objectives.  Which in a way makes complete sense to me, because those categories kind of fall under the same classification. Another example of this category shift is the CSU Chico rubric, were I found a similar classification was made with accessibility, learning objectives and course design.

After reviewing all similarities and differences in all four rubrics, I realized there are several areas I need to develop in order for my online course to meet all the difference standards outlined in these rubrics. One thing I need to work is the use of technology throughout my course, and I need to fill in the gaps where the appropriate technology is merely baseline and not exemplary. More importantly, making sure I match that appropriate use of technology to the right accessibility. When I think of accessibility I automatically think about what can enhance my course by making it accessibility to everyone—even individuals with disabilities. Secondly, I need to work on finding the right assessment tool to measure my objectives for the course and individual units themselves. For example, a timed multiple-choice test might not be the best form of assessment for a learning objective of mastering interview skills. This type of thinking led me to the question, “What forms of assessments are used in my graduate level work to measure its’ student learning outcomes?” What I discovered is that a simple and complex activity like focus questions can provide students the time and opportunity they need to perform higher levels of thinking than a forced answer test ever could.  I am not saying that there will never come a time where multiple-choice exams will be an appropriate test to administer, but just that there are specific times and conditions when those times are necessary.