Here’s an alternative way of viewing this one: QM is just a structure for organization, navigation, and clear communication for online courses. The actual *teaching* is not systematized, just the course format. https://twitter.com/ldburnett/status/1291872188358959105

With students taking 5 courses online right now, the cognitive load of *navigating* courses and understanding what the instructors expect gets in the way of their ability to learn — sets up huge barriers to entry at a time when they’re also coping with uncertainty and trauma.

We went through this in my school when I designed QM based templates for us - what about my academic freedom, what about my creativity, what if I don’t want to set up my online course chronologically? No one should be able to make me.

But the problem is we had data on the biggest issues students encounter with online courses: where is the syllabus? How do I know what I’m supposed to do? How do I contact my instructor? What tech do I need for success?

We came to the agreement that course navigation - creating courses where students can know how to navigate the technology - was different than what you’re teaching and how you’re teaching it (materials, activities, etc.). The latter is academic freedom, not the former.

We’ve been piloting these templates this summer. The students uniformly report that the tech just disappears and they just can focus on learning because they don’t have to also remember how to navigate multiple courses in different ways.

I explained all of this to someone who’s a poet in a consultation yesterday. They had a million amazing ideas and wanted the students doing everything all over the place in many different platforms. Amazing ideas and enthusiasm. But I was overwhelmed by the organization.

I said if you write a sonnet, you’re starting w/ a structure and can do creative, inventive things in the context of the structure & push its boundaries a bit, but the structure is there & it’s the container of invention. That’s the approach we need for online teaching right now.

It resonated for the instructor - to be able to see there is ample room for creativity while still establishing clear expectations, course navigation, and routines (in the way we do f2f but need to do differently online, particularly given current circumstances of learning).

This does not come from some particular love of QM. And I use the 1 pg higher ed standards not the rubric. It comes out of a love for clarity and organization and ensuring that my students take one look at the front page and know exactly how to access what they need.

And I definitely geeked out over course design in my weekly notes for this class because I love backwards design and it makes teaching so much easier.

Final note before I stop talking about course design and go do more of it, I wouldn’t support mandating QM or enforcement at a university level. I use it to have conversations about what can we agree should be there to lower barriers to entry for learning. From there, you do you.