Quality Assurance in Higher Education a Literature Review Wilger a

Quality Assurance (QA) in college education is a concept that owes its beginnings to quality assurance in the industrial sector. The purpose of this chapter is to describe strategies instructional designers tin implement to promote quality balls within their institutions.

What is Quality Assurance?

Quality Assurance (QA) in higher education is a concept owing its ancestry to quality assurance in the industrial sector. A rapidly changing higher education scenario in response to the ever-expanding need of skilled individuals across various disciplines and the phone call for a render on their investment from parents and students are some of the underlying causes for higher teaching to pursue QA (Wilger, A. 1997).

There are many definitions of quality assurance in higher education. In a literature review for the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement (NCPI), Wilger (1997) identifies the most complete definition, every bit follows:

"Quality Balls is a commonage process by which the University as an academic establishment ensures that the quality of educational process is maintained to the standards it has ready itself. Through its quality assurance arrangements the University is able to satisfy itself, its students and interested external persona or bodies that:

Its courses run into the appropriate academic and professional standards,
The objectives of its courses are appropriate
The means called and the resources available for delivering those objectives are appropriate and acceptable, and
Information technology is striving continually to amend the quality of its courses"

(Wilger, 1997; pg two-3)

What Does Literature Say About Quality Assurance?

At that place is a plethora of research (Ryan, 2015; Wilger, 1997) that examines available literature in relation to quality assurance in college education. Some of the major themes that have emerged beyond the various publications were considerations for building a QA program and the affect of QA plan on all primary stakeholders, which include students, kinesthesia, senior leadership. The reviewed literature (Ryan, 2015; Wilger, 1997) also identified the demand to focus on the primary accent of a QA process, the process itself, how information technology operates, and how the information produced is used and reported. When discussing impacts of a QA program, a majority of the literature highlights the perception of the QA program among the primal entities, the acceptance based on the institutional culture equally well every bit skepticism in choosing one QA model over another due to a lack of universally agreed upon QA framework between local, regional, national and international higher ed institutions (Ryan, 2015).

There are myriad quality balls agencies within the higher pedagogy environment. In the United States, regional accreditation is conducted by seven accrediting bodies in six regions. The accrediting bodies are:

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Accreditation Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities
Southern Clan of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)
Middle States Committee on Higher Education (MSCHE)
New England Association of Schools and Colleges(NEASC)
the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and the
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU)

In improver, professions that require licensure and certifications mandate their own gear up of guidelines that the specific programs have to meet. Review of the literature indicated a variety of QA models that tin be adapted to suit a specific need. One of the nigh prominent ones in contempo times has been the Quality Matters program (https://world wide web.qualitymatters.org/) that has a systematic QA process laid out with tools, rubrics as well as professional development with a focus on continuous improvement of design of online programs. However, it does not account for the quality of faculty interaction and delivery in the online programs. These differences inherent in the emphasis of a single QA model combined with other themes discussed before showcase why the higher education customs does non have a universally agreed upon QA framework.

Developing a QA framework that can be universally used requires much collaboration across the diverse local, regional, national and international agencies. What follows provides instructional designers starting the QA process with some practical considerations based on research (Ryan, 2015; Wilger, 1997) and practical feel irrespective of the model or QA agency utilized. The focus is on practical considerations from the "people" and the "process" perspective – the two critical components that play a significant office in the efficient and constructive implementation of QA. Agreement these perspectives allows an instructional designer to map QA processes appropriately.

The People

In the following sections nosotros draw iii primary stakeholders of a academy's online learning QA effort: students, faculty, and upper assistants. All iii should be deemed for if such an try is to exist successful. The rationale is that all three are continued by common themes: quality class pattern, facilitation, and revision. Our aim is to provide QA-useful insight into each stakeholder.

Students

Unlike faculty, an instruction designer (ID) will seldom interact direct with students; rather, interaction occurs via the instructor and the student feedback received. Based on our higher ed experience, a challenge that an ID faces is assisting faculty in determining the appropriate/relevant method of collecting educatee feedback to use, the frequency of its employ, and an approach to using that feedback to inform course adjustments.

Student Role in QA

We take yet to encounter a kinesthesia member who denies the office of student feedback in determining course quality. What is noteworthy, yet, is that some kinesthesia are non comfy receiving feedback from students. As ane faculty stated:

Information technology's never a nice e-mail to get when something'south goofed upwardly or it's but explained poorly and needs to be improved. So, some people I think are more open to that than others. If y'all're defensive, so you're going to say, 'Well, that pupil only doesn't know what they're doing. They should be more than cognizant of what they're doing in the form or more tuned in' versus really stepping back [and stating] "Await, I didn't really communicate what I thought I was communicating or that didn't look as good and intuitive as I thought it should have"

It is important, therefore, for an ID to recognize that some faculty may exist hesitant to collect feedback from students. Additionally, faculty may only feel comfortable, at least initially, receiving student feedback in the form of end-of-form evaluations.

Means of Collecting Pupil Feedback

Most institutions utilize an terminate-of-course educatee evaluation tool; our institution uses the IDEA Student Rating Arrangement. In this section, the focus will predominately exist on instructor-driven educatee feedback tools and recognizing the importance of providing instructors with options for feedback collection. Kinesthesia who accept taught exclusively in a face-to-face up format may be used to gathering pupil feedback in an breezy or ad hoc way, such as afterward or earlier class conversations, which can provide the instructor with insight into the student's experience. Such conversations are less likely to occur in an online course and consequently, an instructor will need to be more deliberate in collecting student feedback.

One style to view teacher-driven tools is through the lens of 2 categories: continuous and time-specific. An example of a continuous tool is a weekly reflective student journal. An example of a time-specific tool is a mid-class survey. Drove tools can additionally be cleaved down by question blazon: students' opinion regarding the course (eastward.g., What aspects of the course would yous change?), students' opinion regarding a specific attribute of the class (e.g., What did you observe challenging nigh group assignment X?), and a students' cogitating assay of their ain academic operation (e.k., Was the Chapter 5 quiz challenging for you? Why was that the case?). Information technology tin can be helpful to make faculty enlightened of their options regarding collecting pupil feedback.

Incorporating Feedback

In one case faculty take gathered pupil feedback, they may need aid classifying the feedback to answer questions such as: Does it address aspects of course pattern, course facilitation, or neither? For example, a student may land that the course assessments were quite difficult. An ID may exist amend positioned than the faculty member to review the course learning activities to determine if students were provided enough opportunities to do the skills that the assessments required of them.

Additionally, faculty may need assistance with an approach for incorporating student feedback. 1 approach appropriate for weekly or midpoint feedback is to disclose to students the feedback that they submitted. Faculty tin can identify feedback into two categories (i.eastward., possible alter and not possible alter) and define what steps, if whatever, will be taken to address these changes. Our experiences have shown us that such an approach validates that students' voices are being heard and that the faculty is addressing students' needs.

For changes or adjustments to future iterations of a course (e.yard., student feedback on an assignment), information technology may exist helpful to provide faculty with a strategy to incorporate those changes. This may involve creating a arrangement for cataloguing student suggestions and creating a plan that allows for enough time to make alterations. A plan such as addressing one module or unit a solar day in the semester prior to the i in which the course volition run may provide structure not previously considered.

Faculty

At institutions where a significant percent of online courses are facilitated by the kinesthesia who design them, faculty are gatekeepers of course quality. In implementing a QA attempt, IDs need to consider general kinesthesia sensation of what constitutes a quality online course and effective and ineffective approaches to achieving faculty buy-in with a QA effort.

Faculty Sensation

Based on our feel, faculty exercise not need to be convinced of the significant role they play in online course QA. In that location is a perceived sense of agency. An ID does need to consider faculty's familiarity with an external validation procedure. Some programs or schools regularly become through an accreditation process that examines its academic efficacy. For instance, because of licensure exams, certification exams, and the need to meet both accreditation and state standards, kinesthesia in some schools are quite familiar with external guidelines. Other faculty may not take any experience with such efforts. Lack of familiarity implies a demand to convince such faculty of the validity of the QA effort. Disarming could take the form of testimonials from kinesthesia peers who have successfully implemented QA-informed practices into the design, delivery, or revision of a grade. If such faculty cannot exist identified, an ID could reach to other institutions where such faculty may exist establish.

Another consideration is whether faculty are aware of what constitutes online class quality. The answer to this varies from institution to institution. QA is impacted by factors such as the following:

the number of staff and faculty who formally support the pedagogical side of online learning,
prioritization of online learning by the institution'southward upper assistants
a number of years the university has offered online programs.

At our institution quality online courses are those that are formally adult with an ID and reviewed using a rubric similar to the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric for Online & Blended courses or are courses comprise a program seeking QM certification. For instance, at i university, electric current plan-level QA efforts require faculty to participate in either the Quality Matters (QM) "Applying the QM Rubric" workshop or an internally developed three-week workshop. Both focus on foundational concepts of form blueprint, the latter also focuses on foundational concepts regarding course facilitation.

With respect to constructive and ineffective approaches to achieving faculty buy-in with a QA try, information technology is a fair assumption that QA efforts increment a faculty'southward workload. Some suggestions as to how to effectively achieve faculty buy-in for a QA effort follow:

Define a faculty champion. Some faculty members accept expressed to united states of america that strictly top-down efforts are seen as ineffective. Therefore, having a fellow faculty member speak to peers nearly a QA effort could be a more effective strategy. As Rogers (2003) suggests, a champion'south people skills, as opposed to his or her position in an organizational chart, will exist the asset most valuable to achieving buy-in (p. 383). Some other consideration is that the champion may demand to be positioned to appoint with administrators about resources the faculty need, such equally course release or stipends, to successfully engage with the QA effort.
Involve faculty from the beginning. It may be the example that the QA endeavour is a top-down mandate. Nevertheless, faculty should exist involved in the specifics of the QA effort from the get-go. A good proffer is to accept the kinesthesia champion lead these conversations. The kinesthesia champion is improve positioned to listen to faculty grievances and to finer applaud the efforts that the kinesthesia are making.
Establish connections for faculty. Perhaps a faculty member is seeking tenure. It may be helpful to encounter how the work being washed to improve the quality of online course design could be included in a retention, tenure, and promotion bundle. Peradventure a faculty member is quite invested in the effectiveness of their education. Experience indicates kinesthesia are much more familiar with the phrase educational activity effectiveness than they are with the term quality balls. Our interactions have revealed that faculty perception virtually the latter term is the implication that something is currently wrong with the course, a bulletin that kinesthesia may not take well.

Another blazon of connection deals with the jargon an ID may use. Information technology is important that faculty are able to grasp the concepts related to the QA attempt. Terms such every bit alignment, objectives, determinative cess, and accessibility may exist foreign to faculty, thus in that location is a need to explain such concepts in a mode that allows faculty to reinvention of their pedagogical practices will not be necessary.

Upper Assistants

Very few upper administrators would sincerely country that they practice non back up an institutional QA effort. Even so, at that place is potentially a meaning gap betwixt a chancellor, president, or provost stating "I am for this QA endeavour" and the allocation of resources to brand the endeavor possible. Equally one administrator put it to us:

If in whatsoever case where the leaders practise non fully invest or practice not provide full support, it would exist difficult to achieve the QA procedure solely from bottom-up process, as information technology would be much more than difficult to overcome the authoritative or functional divisions to become acceptable information and resources, and would usually discourage the efforts to end up as status-quo, within a silo.

Information technology is crucial, therefore, that QA efforts take the support, both in discussion and in resource, from an institution's upper assistants. Even so, the reality is that all institutions will not be able to classify resources towards the effort. This is specially true during trying economic times. Additionally, an ID may not fifty-fifty have access to the establishment'south upper assistants. If either or both is the example, an ID could consider leveraging whatsoever available resources from peer institutions or reduce the scope of the try. The template (see Appendix) provided will allow those who exercise not currently have access to resource and/or senior leadership to make a stiff case for resources in one case they become available.

Getting a Seat at the Tabular array

It is probable that many IDs are non able to directly accost their institution's upper administration. At some universities in that location is an associate vice chancellor who advances QA efforts, merely this may non be the case for all. If the structure of an establishment is such that there is not a direct report position who can advance the crusade to upper administration (i.e., a champion), one needs to be identified.

Speaking the aforementioned language

What makes for a quality online course or program? If there accept been previous QA efforts regarding online courses or programs, it may not be necessary to take a champion engage the president or provost in an teaching campaign about what quality means when applied to online courses. The QA champion would need to acquaintance the effort with a topic viewed every bit important to upper administrators. For example, student enrollment and retention are cardinal considerations for an establishment'southward administration. What motivates a pupil to enroll and persist in a face-to-face program can be quite different from what motivates them to enroll in an online program. While the establishment's overall reputation may consistently be a cistron, variables such equally location, amenities, or a successful able-bodied team are less likely to attract and retain online students.

Sustainable, Data-driven Efforts

2 important considerations of a QA pitch to upper administration are whether it is data-driven and whether sustainability has been considered. One person who has knowledge of this subject informed us:

I accept seen enough cases where misunderstanding and therefore misuse of the QA process from the upper administration end up wasted resource and efforts, and especially closing the door for truthful opportunity because of the lack of trust in the validity of the process.

This insight lends credence to the template (Run into Appendix) provided, a template that is informed by institutional data and promotes the sustainability of the QA effort.

By focusing on practical considerations of a QA effort from the "people" and the "process" perspective, nosotros believe an ID will be well-positioned to successfully map and implement a QA effort.

References

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (Fifth ed.). The Free Printing.

Ryan, T. (2015). Quality balls in college education: A review of literature. Higher Learning Enquiry Communications, 5(4), i-12. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i4.257

Wilger, A. (1997). Quality assurance in higher education: A literature review. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/grouping/ncpi/documents/pdfs/6-03b_qualityassurance.pdf

Appendix

Roadmap to Plan the Quality Balls Journey at Your Establishment

Agreement the contributions of people to the QA procedure will lay the foundation to leverage interpersonal skills in relevant processes to create a QA roadmap at your institution. As a first step, to help you get started with creating your roadmap to plan your QA journey, we take attempted to provide you with a template broken down into a serial of half-dozen steps and key questions to consider. As an instructional designer, you volition be able to see glimpses of the ADDIE process in the various steps identified beneath. Nosotros would as well similar to analyze that this template is an accommodation of a plethora of templates that you might find on the www.

chotheinguing.blogspot.com

Source: https://edtechbooks.org/id_highered/an_examination_of_th