Making the Grade:Quality Assurance for

e-Learning at Penn State

Cathy Holsing, Penn State UniversityLawrence C. Ragan, Penn State University

Ann Taylor, Penn State University

Act 1: The Early Years (2000-03)

• PSU World Campus developed a set of “OnlineTechnical Standards and Pedagogical Guidelines”

• Description of how a World Campus course wouldneed to be designed in order for WC delivery

• Crafted primarily by IDs• highly detailed (256 data points)• virtually incomprehensible and• practically uninterruptible• routinely ignored

•2003 “Tech Stand/Ped Guidelines” were“adopted” by the University for basis of sharingcourses between campuses and courses via WorldCampus– Buried on some institutional web page– Mostly ignored

•2006 PSU Online Coordinating Council establishes asubcommittee (with many of the original suspects)and sets out to revisit and recast the “Tech Standards”

Act 2: Institutional Buy-in

•

Act 3: The Wiser Years

• 2005 PSU Online signs on to QualityMatters project

• 2006 PSU Online Coordinating Councilsubcommittee begins task of revisiting “TechStandards”

• 2006 PSU Online subcommittee beginsprocess of crafting a PSU-specific version ofthe Quality Matters rubric

Act 4: Mapping from QM to QA

• Identified several issues of implementingQM at PSU– Size, number and volume– Costs– Desired intent

Act 5: The Result

• Set out to create a PSU-specific instrumentand process ==> QA@PSU

• Based QA@PSU on QM Rubric and system• QA@PSU Standards have been vetted and

approved and now replace the “TechStandards and Ped Guidelines.”

QA @ PSU Standards

1. NavigationThe course has a consistent and intuitive navigation systemenabling students to quickly locate course information andmaterials.

2. Student OrientationA course orientation is used to familiarize the students withthe course.

3. SyllabusStudents have easy access to a course syllabus whichcontains crucial course information and requirements theyneed to know about the course prior to starting.

QA @ PSU Standards

4. Instructor Response and AvailabilityInstructor response time and availability is clearlycommunicated to the student.

5. Course Resource RequirementsHardware, software, or specialized resources required areclearly communicated to the students.

6. Technical SupportInformation regarding access to technical support is clearlycommunicated to the students.

QA @ PSU Standards

7. Accessibility RequirementsThe course adheres to University policies and guidelinesregarding accessibility.

8. Learning ObjectivesThe course contains learning goals and objectives.

9. Learning Activities and AssessmentThe course learning activities and assessment serve tostimulate student interactions with the course content anddetermine how well student performance achieves the coursegoals and learning objectives.

QA @ PSU Standards

10. Copyright RequirementsThe online course adheres to the current University policiesfor the use of third-party copyrighted material or is able toprovide evidence of appropriate copyright clearance.

11. Course FunctionalityAll aspects of the course perform properly and supportstudent progress.

12. Student Input for Course ImprovementsOpportunities are provided to gather input from students onan on-going basis in order to inform course improvements.

Review Process & Results

Additional tools provided:

1. Instructor Input Formo Completed by Course Faculty Developer to provide

additional information about the course to assist the PeerReviewers

2. Course Review Checklisto Completed by Peer Reviewers as they review courseo Documents status of each standard for that course:

Standard met Standard met, modifications suggested Standard not met

o Includes specific feedback on each standard from PeerReviewers

Review Process & Results

1. Piloted the review process with courses from the College ofArts and Architecture and World Campus

2. Different colleges can implement process in different ways:o College of the Liberal Arts

team approach with internal ID, external ID and faculty used for new courses and as a starting point for

courses ready for revision used as a faculty development tool

o College of Earth and Mineral Sciences courses reviewed by individual editors as part of their

overall course editing process feedback to ID, who will work with faculty

Q & A

• Questions?

• Thoughts?

• Ideas?

For Additional Information

Contacts:

Cathy Holsing - cholsing@psu.edu

Larry Ragan - lcr1@psu.edu

Ann Taylor - anntaylor@psu.edu

https://webhosting.its.psu.edu/elearning/standards.cfm