Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 46–57 | Cite as

Online Course Design in Higher Education: A Review of National and Statewide Evaluation Instruments

  • Sally BaldwinEmail author
  • Yu-Hui Ching
  • Yu-Chang Hsu
Original Paper

Abstract

This research identifies six online course evaluation instruments used nationally or in statewide systems. We examined the characteristics (i.e., number of standards and criteria) and coded the criteria that guide the design of online courses. We discussed the focus of the instruments and their unique features.

Keywords

course design evaluation instruments evaluation tools online education quality Quality Matters 

References

  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Wellesley: Babson Research Group.Google Scholar
  2. Blackboard. (2012). Blackboard exemplary course program rubric. Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com/resources/getdocs/7deaf501-4674-41b9-b2f2-554441ba099b_bbexemplarycourserubric_nov12final.pdf.
  3. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016a). About the OEI. Retrieved from http://ccconlineed.org/about-the-oei/.
  4. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016b). Online course design standards. Retrieved from http://ccconlineed.org/faculty-resources/professional-development/online-course-design-standards/.
  5. California Community College Online Education Initiative. (2016). Course design rubric for the online education initiative. Retrieved from http://ccconlineed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/OEI_CourseDesignRubric_Nov2016-3.pdf.
  6. California State University. (2015a). QOLT awards program CFP. Retrieved from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qolt-awards-cfp/.
  7. California State University. (2015b). QOLT evaluation instruments. Retrieved from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qolt-instruments/.
  8. California State University. (2015c). QOLT program background. Retrieved from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qolt/.
  9. California State University. (2015d). Welcome. Retrieved from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/.
  10. Chao, T. I., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106–126 Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/912/1644.Google Scholar
  11. Chao, T., Saj, T., & Tessier, F. (2006). Establishing a quality review for online courses. Educause Quarterly, 29(3), 32–40.Google Scholar
  12. Chua, A., & Lam, W. (2007). Quality assurance in online education: The Universitas 21 Global approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, S., McElroy, E. J., & LaCour, N. (2000). Distance education, guidelines for good practice. Washington: American Federation of Teachers Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/technology/frc/pdfs/guidlines_for_good_practice_DL.pdf.Google Scholar
  14. Haynie, D. (2015). Study shows sluggish online learning growth for second year. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2015/02/05/study-shows-sluggish-online-learning-growth-for-second-year.
  15. Heaton, L. A., Pauley, R., & Childress, R. (2002). Quality control for online graduate course delivery: A case study. Computers in the Schools, 19(3–4), 103–114. doi: 10.1300/J025v19v03_09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herron, R. I., Holsombach-Ebner, C., Shomate, A. K., & Szathmary, K. J. (2012). Large scale quality engineering in distance learning programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 19–35 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/docview/1361854475?accountid=11311.Google Scholar
  17. Illinois Online Network. (2015a). Quality online course initiative rubric & checklist. University of Illinois. Retrieved from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/initiatives/qoci/rubric.asp.
  18. Illinois Online Network. (2015b). Quality online course initiative. Retrieved from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/initiatives/qoci/index.asp.
  19. Kleen, B., & Soule, L. (2010). Reflections on online course design-Quality Matters™ evaluation and student feedback: An exploratory study. Issues in Information Systems, 11(2), 152–161.Google Scholar
  20. Legon, R. (2015). Measuring the impact of the Quality Matters Rubric™: A discussion of possibilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Little, B. B. (2009). Quality assurance for online nursing courses. Journal of Nursing Education, 48(7), 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenzo, G. (2014). OEI approves course design rubric. TechEDge. Retrieved from http://ccctechedge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=460&Itemid=24.
  23. Lowenthal, P., & Hodges, C. (2015). In search of quality: Using Quality Matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2348/3411.
  24. Maryland Online, Inc. (2014). Quality MattersTM overview. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/applying-rubric-15/download/QM_Overview_for%20Current%20Subscribers_AE2013.pdf.
  25. MarylandOnline. (2016). Higher education program. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/higher-education-program.
  26. MarylandOnline, Inc. (2016). Welcome to the Quality Matters research library! Retrieved from https://www.qmprogram.org/qmresources/research/.
  27. McGahan, S. J., Jackson, C. M., & Premer, K. (2015). Online course quality assurance: Development of a quality checklist. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 10, 126–140.Google Scholar
  28. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service website. Retrieved from gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.Pdf.Google Scholar
  29. Online Learning Consortium. (2015). The open SUNY COTE quality review (OSCQR) process and rubric. Retrieved from https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/conference/2015/aln/open-suny-cote-quality-review-oscqr-process-and-rubric.
  30. Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence. (2016). Course supports. Retrieved from http://commons.suny.edu/cote/course-supports/.
  31. Parscale, S. L., Dumont, J. F., & Plessner, V. R. (2015). The effect of quality management theory on assessing student learning outcomes. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 80(4), 19–30 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/docview/1757273567?accountid=11311.Google Scholar
  32. Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric.
  33. San Francisco State University. (2016). Welcome to QOLT. Retrieved from http://qolt.sfsu.edu.
  34. Shattuck, K. (2010). Quality Matters: A faculty-centered program to assure quality in online course design. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 3, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shattuck, K., Zimmerman, W. A., & Adair, D. (2014). Continuous improvement of the QM Rubric and review processes: Scholarship of integration and application. Internet Learning, 3(1), 25–34 Retrieved from http://www.ipsonet.org/images/Westphalia_Press/Internet_Learning_Journal_2-2/3- 1/3.%20Shattuck%20ILJ%203-1.pdf.Google Scholar
  36. State University of New York. (2016). OSCQR. Retrieved from https://bbsupport.sln.suny.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/OSCQR/OSCQR-Links-BKP-2016-08-09.html.

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations