Some changes in the 7th Edition of the Quality Matters rubrics have caused some confusion about whether an assignment is an activity or an assessment. Quality Matters provided training on the 7th Edition and then followed this with a training session titled "Confusion to Clarity."
I decided to provide my thoughts in an email to Quality Matters.
Hello Quality Matters,
I am writing to share my thoughts on the 7th Edition and the following "Confusion to Clarity” training.
I participated in the 7th Edition Rubric training and actively engaged in discussions. Brenda may remember this. I hold roles as a peer reviewer, an instructor with a successful QM-certified course, an online instructor with 20 years of experience, and a college instructor for 35 years. Currently semi-retired, I will be relinquishing my QM role because I have not taught online in the past 1½ years. Nonetheless, I have advocated for Quality Matters since 2010 and still do.
I agree that the 7th Edition Rubrics training caused some confusion regarding activities and assessments. The “Confusion to Clarity” update was helpful. While I couldn’t attend in person due to travel, I watched the entire recorded video.
I was somewhat disappointed with the “Confusion to Clarity” course because it failed to include several critical concepts discussed in the 7th Edition Rubric course. Additionally, some terminology used for distinguishing activities and assessments remains vague.
The need to refine definitions of activities and assessments seems to arise from QM’s certification of “hybrid” courses, a recent change. Tracking student activities during the “live” component of hybrid classes is challenging. Online courses often use LMSs to track students’ activities. But this isn’t necessarily the case for “live” courses. Quality Matters decided that “live” activities had to be documented somehow in the LMS, which I agree with. However, this meant that for consistency, things previously labeled as "activities” could no longer be considered activities, such as reading the textbook or watching a video, because these actions are not documented in the LMS.
During the 7th Edition Rubric training discussion, Beth and I realized that "activities" require "evidence," most often captured in an LMS. Assignments lacking evidence are categorized as "learning materials." This insight provides a clear and consistent framework for classifying assignments into activities, learning materials, and assessments, promoting uniform application across all assignments. Evidence also underpins the concept of certification (e.g., ISO9000). We can only certify what we observe.
The “Confusion to Clarity” training didn’t mention “evidence” as a distinguishing characteristic of activities. It did not discuss activities in hybrid courses. I had hoped this concept of “evidence” would be included in the training since it helps remove confusion about activities. Using this “evidence” perspective, activities such as reading the textbook, watching a video, or participating in a synchronous course are categorized as learning materials.
Furthermore, the terms “low-stakes” and “practice” are vague and not helpful in distinguishing activities from assessments. In the training, it was suggested that “low-stakes” assessments are likely activities rather than assessments. However, any graded assignment that can change a student’s grade across a grade boundary, such as A- to B+, is not “low stakes.” A one-point assignment could do this. I find the term "low stakes" is unhelpful.
I do not believe that the point value of an assignment determines whether it is an activity or an assessment, but rather whether or not the instructor “assesses” it. Almost any assignment the instructor grades and becomes part of the student’s course grade can qualify as an assessment.
Quality Matters acknowledges the overlap between activities and assessments, and I agree. Assessments can be activities, and activities can be assessments. An activity's low contribution to a student's course grade does not necessarily categorize it solely as an activity. Perhaps assignments reviewed by instructors with feedback but without a grade could be deemed pure activities. Ungraded assignments are, at best, either activities or learning materials. I would leave it to the instructor to decide whether a graded assignment is categorized as an activity, an assessment, or both.
I also question how the term “practice” was used in the training to distinguish between activities and assessments. While "practice" might suggest repetition, a single activity can still provide valuable practice and help students achieve objectives. It seems most activities and assessments offer practice. I find the term “practice,” used by QM, unhelpful. Maybe any final assignment not designed to build knowledge and allow only one attempt, like a final exam, paper, or presentation, could be considered a pure assessment and not an activity.
In my 6th Edition QM-Certified course, I categorize all “quizzes” as assessments and activities. They are designed to allow students to repeat or practice using the quiz. However, if students make only one attempt and call it quits, they are still “practicing.” And since they are graded, meaning assessed, they are also assessments. Relative to QM Standards GS3 and GS5, I don’t see any problem. However, I did categorize my mid-term and final exams only as assessments in my course because they allow only one attempt. (Rick’s Course Map)
Here’s how I would define activities, assessments, and learning materials.
A course should include learning materials, activities, and assessments. The above definitions can be consistently applied to both online and hybrid courses.
Philosophically, students can acquire knowledge solely through learning materials like reading a book. However, activities and assessments are more specifically associated with a “course,” whose primary objective is facilitating students’ learning. Quality Matters certifies “courses,” not “learning.” A course embodies a “learning journey” under the guidance of an instructor.
Below are examples of typical course assignments and how I would classify them as Learning Materials, Activities, and Assessments using my definitions. I consider what students do, the alignment with course or module objectives, the evidence in the LMS, and the instructor's assessment. There is still room for interpretation.
1. These assignments are typically only learning materials because they lack evidence and instructor assessment. Assignments that are only “counted” do not seem to strongly connect to an objective.
3. The following assignments might be both an activity and an assessment, depending on whether the student submits evidence and the instructor assesses it. Otherwise, they are usually learning materials.
4. The following assignments are generally considered assessments, but instructors may have valid reasons to view them also as activities.
5. These assignments are generally just activities because they lack instructor assessment.
6. These items are generally not activities, assessments, or learning materials. They often lack evidence in the LMS or have either no connection or a weak connection to specific learning objectives, even if a grade is provided in the LMS.
Note: In my educational consulting, a common question is, “How do you know that the student watched a video?” I find this question no different than asking, "How do you know the student has read the material?” The answer is that you follow up the “watching” or “reading” with an assessment, such as a quiz. In Quality Matters, “watching” or “reading” alone is insufficient evidence. However, the quiz (or other form of assessment) is sufficient. That’s why “reading” or “watching” are classified as “learning materials.” It should be noted that in the U.S., the Department of Education considers reading or viewing as course “time,” allowing this time to justify the course’s “credit hours.” Nevertheless, this definition satisfies a different purpose. Quality Matters evaluates objectives and activities, which the U.S. Department of Education alternatively prefers, but the DOE recognizes that it is harder to evaluate, so they allow “time” to be used. (Can you imagine every college course requiring QM certification?)
I found the QM 7th Edition course enjoyable. Some students said it exemplified a well-designed online course meeting QM's standards, but I respectfully disagree. While it provided substantial learning material, the only LMS-captured evidence was the single assessment—the final quiz—which could be retaken (also making it an activity). The LMS captured no other interactions. A course showing only one assessment and activity does not meet QM certification criteria. This doesn’t imply the course is deficient; I enjoyed it and engaged in extensive reading and discussions. However, learning depended on student engagement. A student could skip materials and pass the final quiz in under five attempts by intelligently guessing answers.
If you would like to further discuss the ideas I present, please feel free to email me.
Rick Jerz, Ph.D.