With any job or profession, there are standards or guidelines to follow that will ensure a successful task or day. With this in mind, education is an institution where students are introduced to these standards; furthermore, the standards may be listed or in a rubric form, ranked from higher performances to a lesser performance. The following General Standards were created by Quality Matters (QM) as a guideline to evaluate the blueprint for classes accessible by computers.
While reviewing the QM Higher Education Rubric, I came upon major and minor standards, along with challenging guidelines for the design of online courses. The QM Rubric has eight components, listed below, which have subtopics ranked from one point, being of marginal value, to three points, being top-quality.
The eight General Standards are:
Course Overview and Introduction
Learning Objectives
Assessment and Measurement
Instructional Material
Learning Activities and Learner Interaction
Course Technology
Learner Support
Accessibility and Usability
(Higher Ed Course)
I believe all the topics are significant for a prosperous online course. Personally, I found sections Learning Objectives (2), Assessment and Measurement (3) and Accessibility and Usability (8) as key benchmarks; whereas, Learning Activities and Learner Interaction (5), plus Learner Support (7) could have been relocated and/or incorporated within Assessment and Measurement (3) and Course Technology (6) General Standards. Within everyday life, there usually is a purpose for accomplishing something along with factors that determine whether or not one will continue to pursue the purpose. As humans, we like to have an idea of possible results and the importance of undertaking the chances of situations: staying awake or sleep, working or lounge, to be teachable or to teach. The same concept pertains to education in regard to teaching and learning.
The top-rated standard between 2,3, and 8, in my book, is Standard 8. This standard, Accessibility and Usability, does support Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, allowing all population types to be involved with learning; however, I also believe that as a General Standard, it should be publicly available for all users within the entire institution, department, and separate-subject classes. Now focusing on the course, design, itself. When thinking of a whole semester, or the time frame of a class, students have a general idea about the class; however, having aimed goals for the online course, from beginning to end, allows students to envision the correlation between the how and the why of the teaching and the learning involved in the course. Once students have had an opportunity to absorb the content, s/he may be interested in the arrangements and weight of each category being scored via tests, essays, quizzes, reports, and so forth. For myself, knowing the objectives and the attainments of a reachable grade in the subject matter, helps rationalize the value of what will be taught and how the framework of the class is structured.
Subsequently, much of the subtopics in standards 5 and 7 would be able to either fall into standards 3, 6, and/or restated elsewhere all together. My first opinion would be that subtopics 5.1 and 5.2 be linked with Assessments and Measurement (3) since they “promote achievement” and “support active learning”. I believe, both terms encourage intrinsic motivation that may be stressed throughout the course to reinforce the objectives and key attributes of learning. Next, subtopics 7.1 and 7.6 would be able to be part of Course Technology (7), since it involves technical support and how to utilize the support to obtain effective uses of technological tools during the course. Lastly, subtopics 5.3, 5.4, 7.1, and 7.4 all involve general information needed throughout all the online courses and may be communally located as a “rule of thumb”.
The only remaining standard I did not address is the Course Overview and Introduction General Standard (1). For myself, creating a summary is challenging; therefore, being able to summarize a course to meet the institution’s and learner’s needs as an andragogy and promotion for the existence of the class would be an enormous task for me. I have a difficult time keeping things simple; in this case, I'd be putting too much emphasis on dictating the main elements to make a focal point apparent. Throughout my experience, I need extra time to mull over my ideas before making a statement; so therefore, in order for me to create or compose outcomes for a Course Overview and Introduction Standard, I would need to put forth extra design and editing time. Moreover, the added time permits me to focus on the verbiage and flow of the criteria’s being met.
Being able to review these General and Review Standard has opened my mind’s eye to the different forms of rubrics used as guiding tools for gaging outcomes or performances. As an Elementary Educator, I have only used rubrics that focused on a few standards with generic outcomes on assignments or assessments. Never have I ever thought of assigning points for each outcome in a general standard. In other words, using a bottom-up approach for measuring results rather than a top-down approach. I think another significance for reviewing the standards is to view different components needed in a course or classroom, that assists with the learning management for student’s success.
“Higher Ed Course Design Rubric: Quality Matters.” Higher Ed Course Design Rubric | Quality Matters, Quality Matters, 2018, https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric#targetText=.
