The QM rubric is based on 8 primary standards. Each of these standards is comprised of several criteria, by which to evaluate the design of online courses. I see this rubric as an extensive checklist designed to cover all aspects of online course design. It is based on a point system where the criteria are either satisfied fully or not at all (there is no partial credit issued). The rubric places emphasis on a term “alignment” which is described as the product of each of the course components being directly related to and supporting the learning objectives. This rubric utilizes a distinct approach and is in my opinion the most comprehensive amongst those reviewed.
The ECP rubric is comprised of four broad categories including: Course Design, Interaction and Collaboration, Assessment, and Learner Support. Each of these categories is broken down into specific criteria, which are rated on a four level scale ranging from exemplary to incomplete. There are a total of 17 groups of criteria that are assessed under the four main categories. These criteria groups are very elaborate and like the QM rubric, they weigh heavily on their correlation with the course objectives.
The Chico rubric is based on 6 main categories each comprised of several criteria (25 in total), which are rated on a three level scale ranging from baseline to exemplary. This is the most condensed version of all the rubrics reviewed. The rating system is similar to the ECP rubric, however the criteria are far more vague in description. I feel that this may give the evaluator too much leeway to view the criteria subjectively and could lead to inconsistent evaluations.
I have reviewed my online course unit using both the QM and ECP rubric. The changes that I see most necessary are first 7.1 of the QM rubric, “Students have ready access to the technologies required in the course. This was an issue that I addressed in last weeks discussion as well because I knew it would pose the biggest threat on whether or not I will be able to deliver my course unit to a specific audience. The hardware and software required for this course are not inexpensive by any means nor are they commonly used unless you are in the music business. There are three possible solutions I will have to explore. The first would be to deliver the course to individuals who I knew already possessed the required technology. The second option is to find free trial versions of the software and make them available to my students prior to initiating instruction. The final option would be to revise the course content so that the software is no longer required to complete the tasks.
The second element that I will need to address is listed in the QM rubric 7.1, “The course identifies policies and services for the disabled. I have made a few adaptations to my course to accommodate disabled students including PDF and word document versions of the video tutorials, but I am unsure on whether or not I will need to provide additional resources/alternative medias. I also don’t believe that I’ve adequately identified these alternative medias. I know that the software featured is not accessible for the visually impaired and it really wouldn’t make too much sense to take a course in music production if you are hearing impaired, so this is an area that will need further attention before delivery. Worse case scenario, I would have to adjust the assignments that require the software to cover general topics rather than specific software functions and make them optional exercises. The assigned tasks would then be achievable without the use of additional software and would be available in a format that is recognized by screen reading software. This would completely change the approach of my course all the way up to the learning objectives so I will examine all possible alternatives before going this route.
Nat, I can't address your intitution, but at CSUSB instructors teaching on-line are required to make all aspects of their course accessbile, even to the extent that Web sites we select as resources must be accessible. What I find interesting is that instructors who teach F2F only have to provide accessble textbooks and if they show films they must have subtitles. The SSD office provides all other accessible assitance. On-line instructors are responsible for doing it all themselves. Maybe your institution has some assistance to offer you.
ReplyDelete