Internet Learning Volume 4, Number 2, Fall 2015 | Page 80

The Intersection of EPAS and QM Rubric Standards for Best Practice in Distance Education
Standard A.5.5.
The results of ongoing
evaluation must be
appropriately reflected in the
program’s strategic plan,
curriculum, and other
dimensions of the program.
Are there examples of how
evaluation results have been
reflected in curriculum
changes, strategic plan, etc.?
Not addressed
Program evaluation and
strategic planning is currently
beyond the scope of QM.
Adoption of the QM rubric or
institutional membership may
indicate incorporation of data
into program evaluation.
Standard A.6.8.
The program must have
clearly documented
assessment measures by which
students are regularly
evaluated on their acquisition
of knowledge, skills, attitudes,
and competencies required for
graduation.
How have the usual methods
of measuring communication,
comprehension, synthesis, etc.
been adapted to assess
electronically offered courses?
Are technologies available for
instructor/student and
student/student interaction
(e.g., e-mail, chat rooms, fax,
threaded discussions, phone)?
Standard 3.5
Pertains to self-assessment
Standard 6.1 (Essential)
Pertains to course tools
Standard 6.2 (Essential)
Pertains to course tools
Close match. Institutional and
QM concern for regular
evaluation. QM supports
learning objectives and
competencies at the course
level, with technologic tools
for interaction.
2014 © QM Rubric paraphrased by Nancy E. Krusen
Related Standards from Distance Education Checklist 2006 ACOTE Standards converted to
2011 ACOTE Standards for Doctoral/Master’s/OTA
Comparison of ACOTE Standards
with QM Standards confirms the unique
nature of each process. There are areas of
close congruity, areas of limited congruity,
and areas of incongruity across standards.
There is congruity regarding admission
policies, publications, and student services.
Both sets of standards examine technology
and support provided with instructor
directions to student resources. There is
congruity for evaluation and assessment.
Both sets of standards recommend clarity
in tracking student progress, identifying
means of assessment, identifying grading
criteria, and providing feedback to students
within individual courses. There is limited
congruity regarding finances, curriculum
and instruction. Institutional standards
explicitly address the area of budget. The
consumer may imply budgetary support
of distance education when institutions
voluntarily subscribe to Quality Matters.
Institutional and QM standards each examine
minimal consistency between course goals,
learning objectives, and assessment. There is
poor congruity addressing faculty expertise
or professional development. Though QM
as an organization is devoted to development
of faculty expertise, the standards rubric for
course evaluation does not determine such
qualifications. Institutional membership or
individually recognized courses or faculty
completion of QM peer review training
may indicate faculty expertise. There are
no areas of congruity for larger issues of
curricular design, programmatic or degree
competencies. While QM addresses
consistency of course goals, learning
objectives, and assessment within the syllabus
of a single course, there are no connections
to larger issues of curricular design,
programmatic or degree competencies.
Program evaluation and strategic planning
are outside the scope of QM.
79