Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 7

Internet Learning
Further adding to the unique dynamic
of this relationship is the idea that
everyone, innately, is a teacher. In a recent
webinar, well-known instructional design
scholar M. David Merrill recounts a story
in which he silently and patiently listened
to his brother-in-law, a nuclear physicist,
describe advanced and complicated mathematical
derivations related to particle
physics. Afterward, when Merrill began
discussing his own work related to instructional
design theory, his brother-in-law interrupted
him and argued his points, feeling
qualified to do so since “everyone is a
teacher” (Merrill, 2013). The point is valid:
parents and family members instinctively
teach children basic skills and manners;
friends may naturally teach other friends
hobbies and games. Teaching and learning
are part of the human experience.
A natural extension of this is the idea
that faculty members may feel completely
prepared to teach subjects in which they
are experts or scholars. As a result, these
instructor-experts may come to the drawing
board early in the e-learning design
process with learning objectives prepared,
and, oftentimes, these learning objectives
are not measureable, student-centered, realistic,
or aligned with the planned assessment
strategy. The responsibility then falls
on the instructional designer to not only
explain the importance of properly written
learning objectives, but also to guide and
support the instructor-expert through the
process of composing appropriate learning
objectives.
Learning Objectives and the
Quality Matters Program
The Quality Matters Program is an organization
dedicated to the promotion
of quality assurance in online
courses in the higher education and K–12
arenas through an iterative, faculty-centered
peer review process. Quality Matters
(QM) also emphasizes inter-institutional
collaboration, faculty training, and implementation
of research-based best practices
in online course design. Courses that undergo
the QM review process are evaluated
based on a detailed rubric with standards
for the course’s learning objectives, assessment
strategy, instructional materials,
learner engagement, use of technology,
learner support, and accessibility.
In a session at the Quality Matters’
5th Annual Conference on Quality Assurance
in Online Learning, an audience
of approximately ninety – mostly instructional
designers – were asked to submit
to a live poll via text message (see Figure
1 below); the prompt was “Working with
faculty to compose learning objectives can
often be…,” and responses were enlightening.
Typical replies included “frustrating,”
“maddening,” “an uphill battle,” “a challenge,”
and even “painful” (Acevedo, 2013).
Clearly, working with faculty to
compose objectives represents a challenge
for instructional designers, faculty leaders,
faculty trainers, and others who work with
instructor-experts in higher education environments.
In this article, I will provide a
framework, based on common scenarios,
for collaborating with faculty members
during the process of either composing
new, or rewriting ineffective learning objectives.
Additionally, I will include discussion
as to how this process relates to the
QM review process, since learning objec-
6