The rush to standardization by various organizations in higher learning appears to be a race without a specific finish line, in my opinion. That is to say, the ongoing efforts to make sure all the bases are covered in the conversion to digital learning has been a process begun some years ago by the “pioneers” of online learning, whose views and suppositions now become either historical precedent or debated rhetoric, depending on your orientation and point of view. The three standards and rubrics we are examining by three separate entities are logical outgrowths of that era, and so are subject to the same “opinionated” discussion, and conceivably will continue to be, as the online era morphs into some future form. The question is how these standards are used and adopted, and by whom. In all three cases, the stated purpose is to provide a meaningful format of evaluation for online and/or hybrid courses, so that the student receives the maximum benefit from the instruction offered.
The Quality Matters Program for grades 6-12 uses an assigned point total over a series of standards to see how a course matches up to their ideal. It also introduces the concept of Alignment, to make sure that “critical” course objectives are tied together. The higher the total, the better the course. The Blackboard Exemplary Course Program addresses similar elements, but breaks down a course into four categories: Exemplary, Accomplished, Promising, and Incomplete, with a description of each. The Cal State , Chico example basically asks the question “What does a high quality course look like?” and answers it through a series of standards ranked Exemplary, Effective, and Baseline. For the latter two, the assumption is that the standards are for any level of course.
All three of these schemas basically express similar themes of learner support, instructional design, innovation of technology, assessment criteria, and ADA compliance. Blackboard’s criteria, which has been in existence since 2001, appears to be the most comprehensive, followed by QMP. CSU’s example is short but to the point, and by far my choice for best one, perhaps because I prefer criteria to be in that form. From my standpoint, the simpler the better. QMP’s criteria strikes me as being the same as a high-school quiz, where you get a grade. Blackboard is like a district writing prompt rubric, written much too specifically and, in trying to be comprehensive, actually limits itself. CSU in its simplicity, seems to be the most flexible, and by implication, the most useful. It is important to remember that these rubrics are mainly written for faculty and adjunct instructors, many of whom, although not particularly technology savvy, may not be very receptive to being “graded” similarly to how they assess their students. In the private sector, an instructor can basically be anyone, and the evaluator of your online class is probably going to be your boss. In a university setting, however, the evaluator is likely to be an office of technology and the Dean of your college, which presents a different political perspective on how the criteria is used. Another aspect is that while the rubrics all purport to be student oriented, for an online class exercise, the first two seem to be very similar to the types of criteria handed out in syllabi for brick-and-mortar classes, with a few communication aspects such as e-mail thrown in. Indeed, specific technologies are really not spelled out, just required for use. This is, course, because no one can really predict what technologies will be in use in the far, or even the near, future.
At the last, I think as always, the bottom line is funding. No private or public sector institution wants to lay out a bundle of cash to commit to online learning without some sort of criteria. Ironically, perhaps fifteen years ago, when only a few “crackpots” were mentally mulling over the online possibilities of learning, no one particularly cared except the individuals involved. Now, with online learning becoming the latest craze, things are different.
Recently, the University of California announced their intention to do a pilot project for online learning. I imagine that as I write, the monitors of learning in Berkeley are working on their own set of criteria, which, for them I'm sure, will only apply to UC professors. I await this effort with interest.
Since I don't really have anyone to team up with, if I would try and deliver my class this quarter (and I really wish I could), I would have to do a lot. My narratives about each philosophical movement need to be carefully written so that they convey the ideas, but are not too didactic. I want to write them myself, not borrow, because I think I can portray the content in an interesting way (I hope!). Only one of my PowerPoints is real; the other still needs to be created. I need to separate my syllabus and schedule as my professors at Cal State have done, and lastly, even though I have created assessment elsewhere, I will need to do it again here. I'm also not sure I have done enough engagement, or put enough effort in the feedback network needed to reassure students that I would be available if they needed the help. Interpreting political philosophy can be a daunting task without aid.
Bob, you selected a very ambitious project. I wish you luck. If a group of us want to get together at CCSUSB on a Tuesday I can provide a smart classroom and we can present to each other. Maybe that will help facilitate some of us.
After reading so many blogs this session, they all start to sound the same. There is only so much that can be said. You wrote something new, the difference between who is applying the rubric for evaluation, i.e. public ed. v. private ed. v. industry. That shed a different light on the topic and gave me something to think about. Thanks for stimulating my grey matter.
Posted by: Etec648shea.wordpress.com | 02/02/2011 at 03:28 PM