1. Lawrence C. Ragan Penn State’s World Campus Defining Quality Standards for Online Education EDUCAUSE Workshop October, 2002

2. Workshop Goals Discuss quality variables and their impact on the design and development of online course instructionDiscuss quality variables and their impact on the design and development of online course instruction Review and inform two methods of quality standards developed to guide the design, development and delivery of instruction onlineReview and inform two methods of quality standards developed to guide the design, development and delivery of instruction online

3. Assignment #1  Turn to Defining Quality and complete definition  Compare answer with partner at table  What was common in both definitions?

4. Defining Quality  Writing by committee:

5. Defining Quality  Varied interpretations of “quality”  Several industry-wide guidelines or standards for production of course materials (CHEA, AAHE, others)  Broad statements of principles and guidelines

6. Assignment 2: Quality Characteristics  To define quality we need to define variables  Turn to #2. Complete Quality Characteristics variable labels  Compare answer with partner at table  What variables were common in both lists?

7. Quality Characteristics  Writing by committee:

8. Quality Characteristics  Characteristics NOT an indicator of Quality?

9. Online Course Quality Specifics  Variables that can be used to judge the “readiness” of a course/educational event for an online delivery format  List of design and development specifications that can serve as a guide

10. Assignment 3: Quality Assessment/ Assurance  Turn to #3. Briefly describe methods currently used to assure “quality” within your unit  Compare answer with partner  What was common in both descriptions?

12. WC Online Design Standards  Struggle between specifications document and “quality filter”  Had to decide on “objective” of the publication  Opted for “quality filter’

13. Quality Filter Described  Create an instrument that would serve as a “readiness assessment tool” for courses NOT designed or developed BUT to be delivered via the World Campus.  Is not created as a design specification document

14. WC ODS Categories  COURSE PROFILE TOOL: method of gathering demographic information regarding the nature of the course –Asynchronous vs synchronous –Nature of assignments –Timing and duration –Individual vs cohort –Etc…

15. WC ODS Categories  Review COURSE PROFILE TOOL  What questions would you add to make this work at your institution? –What platform for delivery? (browser) –Learner and setting analysis - target audience, student profile –Special (#19) may not be specific enough - define general applications –Mission or objectives of course should be outlined –Computer literacy prerequisites –Availability of faculty –Practical applications - lab requirements –Nature and timing of exams –Group under location requirements –Communication to student about how to start –Total instructional time to manage the course

16. Online Design Standards  User Interface :  issues of structure, navigation, and layout  Media Elements :  issues related to the use of technology  Software : issues related to the use of software and the implications of its use in the course  Permissions/Legal : issues relating to the legality of course and related content  Accessibility : issues related to the accessibility of the course to all students

17. Review Task  In small teams –Evaluate appropriateness of criteria –Where possible “quantify” criteria –Identify missing criteria –Report to large group

18. User Interface  Reviewer Comments –Graphics/text only version – Use of thumbnails – Function tools should be big and obvious – Restrict or eliminate pop-ups and advertising – Culturally appropriate design and graphic content – Links to each page without having to go back to homepage

19. Media Elements Part 1  Reviewer Comments

20. Instructional Design Part 1  Reviewer Comments –Clear learning objectives –Clear connection between learning objectives and assessment process –Clearly articulated assessment criteria and process –Non-ambiguous use of language

21. Media Elements Part 2  Reviewer Comments – General area that addresses software and hardware issues – Very PC-based, should be Mac or PC – Firewalls and proxy servers – Download requirements

22. Software  Reviewer Comments

23. Permissions/Legal – World clearance of permissions –Intellectual property issues

24. Accessibility  Reviewer Comments – Cultural/gender factors and filters – Adapting to culture rather than just translating – Sensitivity issues could be provided to writer/designer at the start of the process –

25. Thank you Larry Ragan LCR1@PSU.EDU