The Impact of QM: Before and After

1. The Impact of QM: Before and After New Mexico State University Alamogordo

2. Outcomes for the Session • Discuss NMSU-A’s distance education before and after Quality Matters™ • Identify the impact Quality Matters™ had on the NMSU-A campus • Hear what impacts Quality Matters has had on your campus

3. Leadership Before QM (2012) After QM (Now) • No oversight of distance education • No staff dedicated to distance education • No dedicated budget • Director of Online Quality Assurance • Online Quality Assurance Team • Dedicated Staff • Director • Instructional Consultant • Administrative Assistant • Transcriptionist • Dedicated Budget

4. Guidelines Before QM (2012) After QM (Now) • No real guidelines to indicate expectations • Distance Education Guidelines Manual • Forms • Procedures • Examples • QM Approved Courses

5. Trained Online Instructors Before QM (2012) After QM (Now) • No specific training required • No formal mentorship program for online faculty • No professional development specific to distance education • Required • Applying the Quality Matters Rubric (APPQMR) • Online Teaching Course • LMS (Canvas) Training • Quality Assurance Team • Monday Matters

6. Online Delivery Expectations Before QM (2012) After QM (Now) • No delivery expectations specific to online • Delivery Standards • Incorporated into Online Teaching Course • Incorporated into Observation Document

7. No Planned Services for Students Before QM (2012) After QM (Now) • Student Confusion on Contacts • No virtual meetings through Student Services • Limited tutoring services • No provided option for proctored testing • No “community” • Homepage directs to one person • Virtual meetings available • Online tutoring through academic support center • ProctorU • Canvas Community

8. No Check of Course Design Before QM (2012) After QM (Now) • Quantity priority over quality • Correspondence-type courses • Put on schedule at last minute • Quality over quantity • Courses with a high level of interaction • No courses offered that have not gone through a QM review or pre-review

9. “eLearning doesn’t just ‘happen’! It requires careful planning and implementation.” -Anonymous

10. Early Surveys of Students Was this course easier to navigate than a typical online course you have taken in the past? Spring 14 - 58% - Yes Fall 14 – 59% - Yes How well did this course engage you? Spring - 77% - More engaged than other online courses How clear were the expectations? Spring - 69% - Better than other online courses

11. Early Student Comments “New and Improved!!! Love the easy navigation!!” “I liked taking this course a lot!! It was very easy to navigate and the requirements were very clear.” “I look forward to taking more courses designed by Quality Matters Standards.” “Excellent course, easy to understand the require-ments of the students, communication with the instructor was better than past online experiences.”

12. Noel-Levitz PSOL Survey Satisfaction Student assignments are clearly defined in the syllabus. Navigation in the online courses is logical, consistent, and efficient. The technologies required in my courses are readily available, provided or easily downloaded. Course learning objectives, and instructions on how to meet them, are made clear in my courses.

13. Noel-Levitz PSOL Survey Importance Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress. The quality of online instruction is excellent. Courses have clear instructions about getting started and where to find things. Student assignments are clearly defined in the syllabus. The learning experience is engaging and supportive.

14. Staff Survey – Spring 2016 Have you noticed an impact from our new distance education initiative? 75% - Yes “The expectations that our students have of the online courses have increased. The students have now been trained to expect a certain quality and anything less than that is now a problem.”

15. Staff Survey – Spring 2016 Based on working with students taking online courses, have you noticed a change in attitude about online courses at NMSU-A? 71.43% - Yes “As the process was ongoing, the students would complain about the non-QM courses, because there was no order to them. The students like the structure of the courses.”

16. Faculty Survey – Spring 2016 Did the changes made in your course to meet the Quality Matters™ Standards make your courses more engaging? 75% - Yes “Students are more actively engaged through the QM improvements.”

17. Faculty Survey – Spring 2016 Have you applied concepts learned through Quality Matters™ and other distance education training to your face-to-face courses? 18.75% - Yes, the training had a significant impact on my face-to-face classes. 25% - Yes, there are some concepts I have transferred. 37.5% - I do not teach face-to-face courses.

18. Pass Rates and Completion Rates Slight increase overall in pass rates. Only small differences in completion rates between online and face-to-face. Larger difference in pass rates between online and face-to-face indicating there are more Fs in online courses.

19. Reflection after three years

20. Did it make a difference for students to have all courses go through a Quality Matters™ review?

21. Did it warrant the financial and human resources that were committed to it?

22. Have the gaps in course retention rates declined?

23. Are the services supporting online instruction appropriate?

24. Are the changes made in online design and delivery being reflected in face-to-face courses?

25. Is the program sustainable?

26. Who would like to share differences you have seen before and after Quality Matters™?

27. Questions? • Sherrell Wheeler, Director of Online Quality Assurance, swheeler@nmsu.edu • Kim Lopez Gallagher, Professor, ktlopez@nmsu.edu • Karen May, Part-time Instructor, kgmay@nmsu.edu • Claire Forsmann, Part-time Instructor, cforsman@nmsu.edu