E-Learning Rubrics and Standards

E-Learning is a method of study that I believe a person should experience at least once in their life. We think of the practical reasons like convenience, but we forget the technical skill that will be attained through the experience. Rubrics are requirements of any course, face-to-face or online. It is the methodology in which the student succeeds that shows the effectiveness of the rubric or not.

Below I have compiled a chart that shows the similarities between Quality Matters (QM), CSU Chico, and Blackboard CMS rubrics. The blank slots indicate no mention of that topic within the rubric and, therefore, show the differences between these e-learning standards. Notably, all three rubrics take on the common rubric ideals of any course, not just by e-Learning standards. They all mention the course’s learning objectives, how the end user’s work will be assessed and measured, learner support (i.e. accommodations for the disabled) and how technology support and resources will make online learning more accessible.

QM	CSU CHICO	Blackboard
Course Overview and Introduction		Goals and Objectives/Orientation to Course
Learning Objectives	Online Organization and Design	Content Presentation
Assessment and Measurement	Assessment and Evaluation of Student Learning	Learner Engagement/Communication Strategies/Development of Learning Community/Assessment Design/Self-assessment
Learner Interaction and Engagement		Interaction logistics
Course Technology/Instructional Materials	Innovative Teaching with Technology	Technology User/Supportive Software
Learner Support	Learner Support and Resources	Accommodations for Disabilities
Accessibility		Technical Accessibility Issues
	Faculty Use of Student Feedback	Feedback
	Instructional Design and Delivery	Instructor Roles and Information

In addition, according to the Quality Matters Rubric, below are the processes that have made the rubric successful. These processes suit the needs of the end user at Chico University and Blackboard as well.

Continuous Course Improvement

·         Courses meet expectations

·         Course is always looking for quality improvement

Centered Student Learning

·         Rubrics are based on national standards and design

·         Promote student learning

Collegial Interaction, Integration, and Support

·         Peer review by faculty

·         Analytical review process

Collaborative Instructors

·         Review is based on collaborative efforts

·         Flexible reviews

 The e-Learning standards presented differ in there execution. Chico University applies its rubric as “a self-evaluation tool to assist instructors with course revisions, as a means to recognize instructors for exemplary online instruction, and as a guide to design new online courses” (Rubric for online instruction). Course evaluations are rated as basic, effective, and exemplary. What struck me as odd was that there was not much emphasis on learner interaction and content management. This may be because the institution is more focused on quality and aesthetically pleasing instructional design. Blackboard uses an Exemplary Course Program to rate each online course provided. The scores are ranged exemplary, accomplished, promising, and incomplete. Their rubric provided “reduces the amount of time it takes to assess the quality and completeness of a course. This is especially helpful if you are using the rubric to assess the courses across a program of study or the work of multiple course developers” (2010 Exemplary course program documents).  I appreciate Blackboard’s CMS the best. As a student, I have witnessed firsthand its efficiency and durability. In addition, if any problems do arise the Help Desk Center is ready and willing to fix any problem right then and there. QM rubrics are more concerned with the alignment of the course above anything else. These are the critical components that have kept the QM Program successful: Learning Objectives, Assessment and Measurement, Instructional Materials, Learner Interaction and Engagement, and Course Technology .

Helpful Links: QM: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ844217&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ844217

Helpful Links: CSU Chico: http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&sid=b45700f6-7fba-4bf5-838f-f9e7ddc1b76c%40sessionmgr10&hid=11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=ED317336

Helpful Links: Blackboard: http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/ehost/detail?vid=7&sid=b45700f6-7fba-4bf5-838f-f9e7ddc1b76c%40sessionmgr10&hid=11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ936994

Below is an overview of my e-Learning  delivery plan (rubric) that helps to rate assessment, measurement, learner interaction and engagement.

Rubric	Score: 5	Score: 4	Score: 3	Score: 2	Score: 1
Assessment and Measurement	Student makes a credible (APA) effort to discuss topic at hand; discusses the underlying route and objective of the question; above and beyond submission; follows essential cognitive and social presence ideals; presents real-life examples and questions	Significance is high, but generic;  lacks a credible argument and forgets underlying material	Late 1 day; or significance is based on speculation, rather than fact, but there is evident effort	Late 2 days; but still submits assignment; or post does not grasp essential components;  lacks foundational principles	Late more than three days, but submitted assignment (Note: Instructor always keeps discussions up)
Learner Interaction and Engagement	Follows 3-4 reply criteria; great engagement; replies were well-written and well-versed on the topic; Exceeded the 1 paragraph minimum; goes above and beyond; discusses real-life examples; asks questions and relates them to the business/education world (resources)	Follows essential criteria, but does not take a business or education sector perspective	Follows essential criteria, but does not seem engaged in responses (not a great amount of insightful feedback or resources)	Does not respond to 3-4 posts ,or is late 2 days, and does not monitor their posts	Late more than three days , but submitted assignment(Note: Instructor always keeps discussions up)

What I could improve in my rubric before it is delivered is the way I measure my student’s scores. I suppose scores of 1-5 would be difficult on both the instructor and student to follow. I believe keeping the basic structure of a rubric on a ‘0, 1, 3 5’, ratio would be more simplistic and actually motivate the students to work harder.  What I will do to improve my training would be to provide students examples of 1, 3, and 5 level work. Not only does this help eliminate any unclear ideas, but it provides the students an opportunity to navigate their CMS system properly and look at the sources that the instructor has provided to them.

What I could also improve in my rubric before delivery is student interaction through Blackboard. It becomes very easy for a student to come up with generic answers when responding to a fellow classmate. It would be my responsibility to ensure that each student was exuding their own cognitive presence in their discussion and going beyond resources that have already been given to them.  What I could do to help improve my instruction would be to set up an introduction discussion the first week to have the students get to know one another. A one minute YouTube presentation might even break the ice a bit more. Or if the class was hybrid, that may be even more efficient! The main idea is that students will be more inclined to ask questions, relate to their fellow students, and even be more outgoing when they are comfortable and aware of their audience.

Resources

2010 Exemplary course program documents. 2010.  Blackboard. Retrieved from

               http://kb.blackboard.com/display/EXEMPLARY/2010+Exemplary+Course+Program+Documents

Rubric for online instruction. 2012. CSU Chico. Retrieved from http://www.csuchico.edu/roi/

Higher ed program>Program rubric. 2010. QM. Retrieved from http://www.qmprogram.org/rubric