Community College Faculty Perceptions of the Quality Matters™ Rubric
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2052Keywords:
Quality Matters, faculty development, faculty perceptionsAbstract
This paper reviewed the factors that make up quality assurance including course design, content, delivery, and institutional support, as well as infrastructure in relationship to professional development impact on teaching practice. Building on the assumption identified in literature is the concept of course design being the most critical component impacting both student learning and faculty teaching. Course design affects student learning, faculty satisfaction with the course, establishes a teaching presence, and influences the transactional difference that occurs between the students and the instructor. Using the premise of the critical nature of course design, this study reviewed how the use of faculty professional development through a Applying the Quality Matters Rubric (APPQMR) workshop using the Quality Matters (QM) rubric as a framework to impact course design created specific faculty perceptions and affected teaching practice. Six themes identified from the research related to faculty’s perceived value and rigor of the QM rubric and training are discussed in the conclusion section.
References
Adair, D., & Shattuck, K. (2015). Quality Matters™: An educational input in an ongoing design-based research project. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/08923647.2015.1057094
Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T.T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
Bento, R.F., & White, L.F. (2010). Quality measures that matter. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 7, 61–72. doi:10.28945/1192
Bigatel, P., & Williams, V. (2015). Measuring student engagement in an online program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer182/bigatel_williams182.html
Bogle, L., Cook, V., Day, S.L., & Swan, K. (2009). Blended program development: Applying the Quality Matters and community of inquiry frameworks to ensure high quality design and implementation. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 5(2), 51–66. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50806595_Blended_Program_Development_Applying_the_Quality_Matters_and_Community_of_Inquiry_Frameworks_to_Ensure_High_Quality_Design_and_Implementation
Chen, K., Lowenthal, P.R., Bauer, C., Heaps, A., & Nielsen, C. (2017). Moving beyond smile sheets: A case study on the evaluation and iterative improvement of an online faculty development program. Online Learning, 21(1), 85–111. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.810
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dempsey, P., & Liu, Y. (2017). Strategies for generating faculty buy-in for instructional design [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://view.publitas.com/p222-13633/olc-2017-study/page/1
Garrett, R., Legon, R., & Fredericksen, E.E. (2019). CHLOE 3 behind the numbers: The changing landscape of online education 2019. Retrieved from Quality Matters website:qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-3-report-2019
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Gregory, R., & Martindale, T. (2017). Faculty development for online instruction in higher education. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the AECT: Vol. 2, (pp. 213–223). Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/pdf/proceedings16/2016i/16_08.pdf
Herman, J.H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional development programs available to online instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 87–106. doi:10.24059/olj.v16i5.282
Hollowell, G.P., Brooks, R.M., & Anderson, Y.B. (2017). Course design, quality matters training, and student outcomes. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 1–10. doi:10.1080/08923647.2017.1301144
Kearns, L.R., & Mancilla, R. (2017). The impact of quality matters professional development on teaching across delivery formats. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 1–13. doi:10.1080/08923647.2017.1301145
Legon, R., & Runyon, J. (2007). Research on the impact of the Quality Matters course review process. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, WI. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/resource_library/proceedings/07_5284.pdf
McQuiggan, C.A. (2012). Faculty development for online teaching as a catalyst for change. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 27–61. doi:10.24059/olj.v16i2.258
Mehta, R., Makani-Lim, B., Rajan, M.N., & Easter, M.K. (2017). Creating online learning spaces for emerging markets: An investigation of the link between course design and student engagement. Journal of Business & Behavioral Sciences, 29(1), 116–133. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=122993876&site=eds-live&scope=site
Mercer, R.E. (2014). Impacts of a Quality Matters™ workshop on faculty who design, develop, and deliver online courses: A mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.memphis.edu/docview/1664841547?accountid=14582
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, (74), 5–12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401
Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). [Amazon Rental/Kindle version]. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Quality Matters. (2017). Why QM: About. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/why-quality-matters/about-qm
Ragan, L.C., & Schroeder, R. (2014). Supporting faculty success in online learning: Requirements for individual and institutional leadership. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Leading the e-learning transformation of higher education: Meeting the challenges of technology and distance education (pp. 108–131). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. doi:10.1080/08923647.2014.926470
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Wendt, J., Wighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(3), 18–34. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2203
Roehrs, C., Wang, L., & Kendrick, D. (2013). Preparing faculty to use the Quality Matters model for course improvement. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 52–67. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no1/roehrs_0313.pdf
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). (2006). Faculty credentials. Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/faculty%20credentials.pdf
Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 81–88. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.002
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Higher education: Use of new data could help improve oversight of distance education (GAO-12-39). doi:10.11610/connections.12.1.07
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540
Wingo, N.P., Ivankova, N.V., & Moss, J.A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching online: Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15–35. doi:10.10.24059/olj.v21i1.761
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
