Quality Assurance Policy

QA Online and Blended Course Review Policy

Approvals and process required for fully online and blended course design

1. Applicability. This policy applies to all courses designated as fully online or blended, and only to the design of such courses rather than delivery. This policy is not intended to replace or circumvent any other course approval processes required by the APRC, College EPC, or school/department curriculum committee. The processes outlined in this policy should occur in tandem with all other required approval processes.

2. Overview of approval process:

a. The approval process is intended to be collegial and developmental in nature. The course designer will participate fully in the review process. Each course review team will consist primarily of qualified faculty members, with support from instructional designers in CTLT.

b. All new online or blended courses will be reviewed by a Quality Assurance team (described below) using the Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Online and Blended Courses (described below), a standards document approved by the APRC and maintained by CTLT.

c. All courses are expected to follow applicable laws and regulations. Student identity assurance, confidentiality of records, accessible design, and copyright compliance are among the most important concerns in the online environment.

d. If the course designer does not think that a specific item in the Guidelines applies to a given course, he or she may explain this to the other members of the review team. Any standard other than those pertaining to laws or regulations can be waived if there is general agreement in the review team that the particular standard does not apply to a given course.

e. If the review team agrees that a course meets the standards, it will be identified in Webadvisor as having met FDU's Online and Blended Course Quality Standards.

f. If a course does not meet one or more of the standards, the review team (including the course designer) will meet with the appropriate Chair, Director, and/or Dean to discuss any standards that were not met. The Dean will decide if the course will be permitted to run.

g. This policy will be gradually implemented over a two-year period, to enable course developers time to understand the standards and apply them to course design.

h. Existing courses will be evaluated over a three year period.

i. All courses should be re-submitted for review every five years.

3. Review Standards. All courses will be reviewed using the Guidelines for Quality Assurance document approved by the APRC and maintained by CTLT. The Guidelines will be updated annually by CTLT to reflect changes in technology, legal requirements, and input from faculty and academic administrators at FDU. All updates will be submitted to the APRC annually for review and approval.

4. Quality assurance team. The composition of the quality assurance team is based on the recommendations made by Quality Matters.. The quality assurance team will usually consist of the following individuals:

a. Course developer.

b. Quality assurance reviewer (unless it is not possible to obtain a reviewer within the course review timeline). Certified reviewers are faculty members who have successfully completed the CTLT faculty reviewer course. Alternatively, certified Quality Matters reviewers may be used to fill this role. As the budget allows, CTLT will sponsor faculty members who wish to complete the Quality Matters certification for online training.

c. Instructional design expert from CTLT. Instructional Design experts are members of the CTLT instructional design staff, and have completed at least some graduate level course work for credit in the field of instructional design or education.

d. Additional subject matter expert (optional, but may be required by the Chair, Director, or Dean). The additional subject matter expert will usually be a faculty member within the course developer's own department or recruited from a neighboring college or university. The course developer will work with his or her Chair, Director, or Dean to identify an appropriate subject matter expert for the review team.

5. Alternatives to this process. Colleges may develop their own review procedures and minimum quality standards, which must be approved by the University Provost and must address all of the standards in the Guidelines.

 


 

Copyright © Fairleigh Dickinson University