From the Ground Up: Conceptions of Quality in Course Design for Web-Supported Education Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gary Greenberg, M.A. Graduate Program in Education The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Professor Richard Voithofer, Advisor Professor Anika Ball Anthony Professor David Stein ii Copyright by Gary Greenberg 2010 iii ABSTRACT Higher education in the U.S. is experiencing a wave of distance education activity, with nearly twenty percent of all U.S. higher education students taking at least one online course in the fall of 2007 (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Accompanying this activity is a renewed concern on the part of distance learning administrators, faculty, and professional associations about the overall quality of these efforts. Governments and institutions use a variety of approaches to measuring quality—internal and external committee reviews, formal assessments using standards and benchmarks created by government or professional bodies, and reviews of inputs and outputs akin to the quality assurance approaches of business and industry. This interpretive study explored the interaction between quality standards, faculty, staff, and managers by conducting an instrumental case study of one institution’s efforts to implement quality at the level of course creation and design. Big Town Community College’s Department of Distance Education and Instructional Support currently uses a widely available set of course design standards to assess and improve quality in its offerings of online courses. The course design standards, in the form of a rubric, are made available by an organization called Quality Matters (MarylandOnline, 2006). The study uses activity theory to analyze data and theorize about the case (Engeström, 2008). ii The primary finding of this study is that the Quality Matters rubric supported the design work of faculty and staff in significant ways—especially by helping to create a shared object for their course design activity. However, it also led to contradictions in the activity—both between staff and faculty and the design standards themselves, and also between staff and faculty and the division of labor used at the college for designing a Web-supported course. Other findings revolved around the question of how the project management model in use at Big Town supports and hinders the implementation of the Quality Matters rubric. These findings revealed the importance of the way in which an institution implements the Quality Matters process, particularly in regard to whether it treats the design standards as rules to be enforced, or as guidelines with which to begin a conversation about quality. Other findings concern the impact of increasing faculty and staff workloads due to Web-supported course design, and the importance of the working relationship between faculty members and instructional designers as they develop a course. iii DEDICATION Dedicated to the memory of three scholars past: Suzanne Kidd Damarin, David Stanley McLellan, and Hilary McLellan iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have many people to thank for their support, advice, and encouragement about this work. That list begins with my two advisors. I began my dissertation work with Dr. Suzanne Kidd Damarin. Dr. Damarin’s bold advice on my topic, her critical eye for detail, and her pointed questions set me on a steady course in my research. After her untimely death, Dr. Richard Voithofer, Suzanne’s close colleague, picked up where she left off and, without missing a beat, guided me toward the conclusion of the study, with crucial reader feedback and editorial suggestions. I thank my committee members, Dr. David Stein and Dr. Anika Ball Anthony, for their guidance. Dr. Constance Wanstreet gave timely guidance as my peer debriefer. Dr. Jan Nespor also gave me helpful early advice on my topic and choice of theoretical perspective. An interpretive case study rises or falls on the cooperation of its participants, and in this I could have done no better than work with the distance learning department at Big Town Community College—its faculty, staff, administrators, and students. From my first tentative contacts with the department’s leaders, to every encounter with its staff and collaborating faculty, the experience was engaging, open, and moving for me personally. I thank these people from the bottom of my heart. Lastly, my deepest thanks to our family and friends, who encouraged me to enter a doctoral program and carry out this research. You were the ones who sustained my v interest in the work when it hit rough patches, and help me persevere. Of course, being married to a scholar, who also served as my dissertation coach, was the best and most meaningful help of all—and for that, Margie, I can only say thank you. vi VITA June 1970……………………………………..University Lake School, Hartland, WI 1975……………………………………… …B.S. Environmental Information Communication, University of Wisconsin 1999………………………………………....M.A.Technical & Scientific Communication Miami University, Oxford, Ohio PUBLICATIONS Greenberg, G. (1998). Distance education technologies: Best practices for k-12 settings. Technology and Society Magazine, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Winter 1998/1999. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………….……II DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………………IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………V VITA…………………………………………………………………………………………………...….VII TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………….VIII LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………...…….XII LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………...…..XIII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 DEFINITION OF TERMS .......................................................................................................................................6 STUDY DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................................................8 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................................................12 THEORETICAL FRAME......................................................................................................................................12 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY .................................................................................................................................14 LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS OF STUDY ...............................................................................................16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................18 OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER...........................................................................................................................18 CONCEPTIONS OF QUALITY .............................................................................................................................20 MANAGEMENT OF WEB-SUPPORTED EDUCATION………………………………………………………..47 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER ...........................................................................................................................58 viii CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK..........................................................................................59 OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER...........................................................................................................................59 CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY ..........................................................................................................76 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER ...........................................................................................................................77 CHAPTER 4: METHODS................................................................................................................................78 OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER...........................................................................................................................78 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ..................................................................................................................................79 RESEARCH APPROACH: AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY............................................................................81 RESEARCH DESIGN ..........................................................................................................................................81 RESEARCH SITE................................................................................................................................................84 PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................................................................................................84 STUDY PROCEDURES........................................................................................................................................89 OBSERVATION ..................................................................................................................................................90 INTERVIEWS .....................................................................................................................................................91