Background
The George Washington University Faculty Senate passed a resolution in March 2018 (resolution 18/6), endorsing Quality Matters (QM) for all online and hybrid programs. GW’s Provost’s office set a policy that online courses must meet minimum standards to ensure that online programs receive the same scrutiny as face-to-face programs.
QM is a non-profit national organization widely recognized as providing the gold standard for best design practices and faculty peer evaluation of online courses. The QM Rubric was developed as a faculty-driven, collegial process that is research-based and systematic but remains flexible and non-prescriptive to how a course is taught. The QM Rubric is a set of standards to evaluate the design of online and blended courses but does not evaluate the quality of academic content, what content is taught, or how a course is taught. QM evaluation sets GW courses on a path of continuous improvement — we want to always look for ways to improve and enhance the quality of our online offerings for students.
Courses offered online should meet the QM standards before they are launched. The goal is to minimally ensure that online courses are designed to be consistent with pedagogical best practices and legal requirements for accessibility. In implementing this, each school monitors and documents the quality standards for each online course.
A Common GW Approach to QM
All instructional designers (IDs) who work on online/ hybrid course development are trained in the QM standards. The University also offers training to faculty who are interested. The University, through the LAI, assists school-based IDs in this work.
Someone other than the original ID should be the QM reviewer. Having another person review the course is beneficial, not just for QM, but because their outside perspective can bring new insight into navigating the course. The QM Reviewer benefits as well by seeing other courses around GW.
To ensure that the course meets QM standards, it is best practice that its principles are integrated into the course design process. This will also reduce the time frame for and complexity of a QM review and remediation. Instructional Designers or program staff evaluate the course using the QM rubric once the course design process has been completed.
QM is about continuous improvement, not perfection. The QM review process is intended to be diagnostic and collegial, not evaluative and judgmental. The process reflects a culture of continuous quality improvement in our work and can help foster a collaborative team.
When you partner with an ID at the CTE, these principles are integrated into the work that you do together and another ID will complete the QM review.
Tips and Reminders for QM Reviews
Adapted from the QM Workbook (7th Ed.) and Applying the QM Rubric (APPQM).
Overall Rubric Requirements
The QM rubric has 44 standards. 22 of these are “Essential” (required) to be met. The course must meet enough of the remaining standards to achieve a total minimum score of 85%.
All or Nothing
Rubric points given are either all or nothing. For example, essential standards (3-point standards) should not receive “2 out of 3” points. They either meet the requirement and receive three points, or do not meet the requirement and do not receive any points.
85% Rule
The course must meet every standard of an estimated 85% or higher level for points to be given. This threshold allows for some flexibility in course design with faculty. We recommend striving for 100%, but work can always improve and grow. This is why the reviewer's suggestions are so important. A reviewer may deem that a standard is met at 85%, but make valuable suggestions for how to strengthen the work.
Click-through
Standard 8.2 in the QM Rubric notes that typos and errors in the course should be minimal and a click-through, including checking that URLs are functioning properly, is often also done (by either the reviewer or someone else) as part of the final course evaluation to address this.
Writing Helpful Recommendations
The QM workbook offers guidance on how to write a helpful recommendation to promote the continuous improvement of the course. Use language from the specific review standard and annotation; provide examples of evidence from the course (with course location); and be constructive, specific, measurable, sensitive, and balanced. Following this standard language creates consistency across the university, particularly when programs are audited.
