Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 28

Continuous Improvement of the QM Rubric and Review Processes
• The scholarship of integration is “inter-disciplinary,
interpretive, integrative”
(italics in original) (Boyer, p. 20) and
about “making connections across disciplines”
(p. 18).
• The scholarship of applicaton is about
use of knowledge from research to improve
societal problems.
• The scholarship of teaching encompasses
the relationship between teacher
and student in which the teacher is also
a learner to improve student intellectual
growth
Boyer’s call “to liberate academic
careers from the hegemony of published
research as the dominant product and
measure of scholarship” (Bernstein & Bass,
2005, para. 41) served as a “tipping point”
in the century-long debate of research versus
teaching (Rice, 2002, p. 7). The growing
sophistication of digital technologies of
the past decade introduces new formats for
the production, publication, and dissemination
of faculty scholarship (Bernstein &
Bass, 2005; Hatch, Bass, Iiyoshi, & Mace,
2004). The scholarship of application and
integration is evident in QM’s research on
continuous improvement. Examples described
in this article are
• Regular review and refinement of the
QM Rubric and peer review processes;
• Consistently rigorous applications of
the QM process, which are inter-disciplinary
and integrative, and provide
tools and strategies for interpreting research
into useable processes; and
• Statistical analyses of data gathered
during the QM peer reviews which inform
continuous improvement of the
QM Rubric and application of research
and shared online teaching/designing
expertise across academic disciplines
and educational institutions.
Ultimately, the scholarship of teaching
is behind the QM commitment to development
and dissemination of standards
of quality in online course design, which
is a key phase in developing strong teaching
presence. The scholarship of discovery
– “disciplined work that seeks to interpret,
draw together, and bring new insight to
bear on original research” (Boyer, p. 19)
– is the focus of QM’s interest in original
research. This interest will be the focus for
2014-2015.
Regular Review and Refinement of
the QM Rubric and Processes
The 2007 article by Shattuck describes
the development of the eight general
standards of quality online course design
as they were (and continue to be) informed
by the independent research literature and
established best practices. The QM Rubric
and processes are dynamically interpretive
of evolving research and best practices. The
plan to conduct a complete review of the
QM Higher Education Rubric and peer
review process was established during the
grant period, and reviews have become
more thorough over the past decade. The
ongoing history of review and refinement
of the QM Higher Education Rubric and
Processes chart outlines the review process
and outcomes for the past five Rubrics,
from the first to the current review.
The chart outlines the continuously
improving processes used by QM to ensure
wide input and transparency in the
refinement of the Rubric and the peer review
process. Figure 1 represents the current,
rigorous, and comprehensive process
followed to launch each new edition of the
QM Rubric. The process is undergirded by
the commitment to interpret research, best
practices, and teaching/designing expertise
27