, 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


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.


course design evaluation instruments evaluation tools online education quality Quality Matters 


  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
  3. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016a). About the OEI. Retrieved from
  4. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016b). Online course design standards. Retrieved from
  5. California Community College Online Education Initiative. (2016). Course design rubric for the online education initiative. Retrieved from
  6. California State University. (2015a). QOLT awards program CFP. Retrieved from
  7. California State University. (2015b). QOLT evaluation instruments. Retrieved from
  8. California State University. (2015c). QOLT program background. Retrieved from
  9. California State University. (2015d). Welcome. Retrieved from
  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 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 Scholar
  14. Haynie, D. (2015). Study shows sluggish online learning growth for second year. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from
  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 Scholar
  17. Illinois Online Network. (2015a). Quality online course initiative rubric & checklist. University of Illinois. Retrieved from
  18. Illinois Online Network. (2015b). Quality online course initiative. Retrieved from
  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
  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
  24. Maryland Online, Inc. (2014). Quality MattersTM overview. Retrieved from
  25. MarylandOnline. (2016). Higher education program. Retrieved from
  26. MarylandOnline, Inc. (2016). Welcome to the Quality Matters research library! Retrieved from
  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
  30. Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence. (2016). Course supports. Retrieved from
  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 Scholar
  32. Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards. Retrieved from
  33. San Francisco State University. (2016). Welcome to QOLT. Retrieved from
  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 1/3.%20Shattuck%20ILJ%203-1.pdf.Google Scholar
  36. State University of New York. (2016). OSCQR. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations