Module 5: Evaluation of Quality

The process of assessing sample online courses varied in its difficulty. The rubric I selected was easy to implement as an assessment tool: the criteria were clearly defined, the performance levels were clearly described, and the scale was helpful for considering recommendations to improve quality. I did have a little trouble adjusting a qualitative scale to a quantitative assessment score. The rubric scale included Developing/Competent/Exemplary descriptors that I had to convert to a numerical score to represent quality, while other rubrics had numbers that coincided with rubric scale descriptors. I also noted halfway through my evaluation process that the rubric was developed for a K-12 online course context and I was using it to evaluate one K-12 online course and one higher education online course. Some criteria were not as relevant to a higher education learning environment, and thus the evaluation might not have been as effective as if I had chosen an evaluation tool that was specifically developed for that context.

It was very easy to evaluate an online course that I had already taken: EDIT 762 was clearly designed as a model of a quality online and asynchronous course. All the dimensions of quality for meaningful learning were present. The fact that I had experienced the interactions, social presence, and cognitive presence as a student within the course meant that I could speak from firsthand experience about the quality of the course. The Virtual Virginia course, however, proved to be a different story. The Virtual Virginia course website had a brief course description and notes about who could take the course and when. I found a sample lesson from the course, but this was just one piece of the larger course design. I felt that my evaluation missed out on key elements of instructor-learner, learner-learner, and social presence interactions due to my lack of access to the course. For these reasons, I ranked EDIT 762 as a quality course and the Virtual Virginia course as needing improvement to meet that quality benchmark.

I realize that I am just beginning my journey as a course evaluator. If I wanted to become more experienced in evaluating online courses, I would repeat the Module 5 experience across various online courses. It is best if the evaluator has access to all aspects of the course in order to make recommendations that extend from more than just surface level observations. I feel comfortable with using the provided rubrics to evaluate my own blended courses to measure where I have room for growth towards quality in my own practice. This end module provided me--quite literally--with the tools that I need to assess for quality in order to provide meaningful learning for my blended learning classroom.

My initial definition of quality in K-12 online and blended accounted for the fact that quality was not a one-size-fits-all concept but rather a set of conditions that must be in place for meaningful learning to occur. I did not know that those conditions would be the dimensions of interaction, which would become the focus of assignments related to defining elements of quality, considering quality as related to specific models of blended and online learning, designing an evaluation tool, and carrying out an evaluation of quality. Quality has to do with observable conditions that are purposefully designed for meaningful learning to occur. Some conditions are physically observable, such as opportunities for in-course interactions (discussion boards) or ease of learner navigation within the LMS. Some conditions are not physically observable, such as the feeling that one belongs within the learning community of an online course. All of these conditions, however, must be considered when designing with intentionality.

My biggest takeaway from this learning experience was that I have a lot of work to do in the development of quality within my own blended courses. In some respects, my Fall 2020 Schoology courses were digitized versions of what I did in the pre-COVID19 classroom. While I considered this to be competent content delivery, I was not accounting for the interactions between learner and content, learner and learner, etc. that are necessary for meaningful learning to occur in a blended learning environment. My Spring 2021 Schoology courses are not perfect, but I am more aware of the need for particular types of interaction. I am confident that I can self-evaluate and design for improvement within the six dimensions of quality. The Module 5 rubrics--both instructor-provided and chapter-created--are useful benchmarks in determining my baseline and how I can grow in my designs. If I had to assess myself using the same rubric as I used for my Module 5 evaluations, I would currently rate myself as Competent in the instructor-learner, learner-content, learner-interface, and learner-cognitive presence categories and Developing in the learner-learner and learner-social presence categories. I wish I had a screenshot of how my course design started in August 2020, but I can show you how it's going. 😎