Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 156–172 | Cite as

An online course design checklist: development and users’ perceptions

  • Sally J. BaldwinEmail author
  • Yu-Hui Ching
Article

Abstract

This study examines users’ perceptions of an online course design checklist. We created the Online Course Design Checklist (OCDC) to help highlight very basic criteria that may improve the quality of online courses. The OCDC highlights criteria that should not be ignored during online course development. It is based on components of established instructional design principles and existing online course design evaluation instruments. To understand course designers’ perception of the OCDC, we surveyed nineteen current and prospective online instructors on their use of it. Participants found the OCDC facilitated online course design by providing criteria to consider before, during, and after online course design.

Keywords

Checklist Course design Evaluation Instructional design Quality 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Sally Baldwin and Yu-Hui Ching declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arriaga, A. F., Bader, A. M., Wong, J. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Berry, W. R., Ziewacz, J. E., et al. (2013). Simulation-based trial of surgical-crisis checklists. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(3), 246–253.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1204720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, S. J. (2017). Adaptation and acceptance in online course design from four-year college and university instructors: An analysis using grounded theory. Doctoral dissertation.  https://doi.org/10.18122/B28T4W.
  3. Baldwin, S., Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2018). Online course design: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0215.Google Scholar
  4. Berk, R. A. (2013). Face-to-face versus online course evaluations: A “consumer’s guide” to seven strategies. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 140–148.Google Scholar
  5. Blackboard. (2017). Blackboard exemplary course program rubric. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://community.blackboard.com/docs/DOC-3505-blackboard-exemplary-course-program-rubric.
  6. California Community College Online Education Initiative. (2016). Course design rubric for the online education initiative. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://ccconlineed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/OEI_CourseDesignRubric_Nov2016-3.pdf.
  7. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016). Online course design standards. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://ccconlineed.org/faculty-resources/professional-development/online-course-design-standards/.
  8. California State University. (2015a). Quality assurance for blended and online courses. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/quality-matters/.
  9. California State University. (2015b). CSU QLT informal review instruments. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qlt-non-award-instruments/.
  10. Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 106–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, S. Y., & Ahn, S. H. (2010). Quality assurance for online programs. International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, 2(4), 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. University of Oklahoma, 27, 1–33.Google Scholar
  14. Garrett, R., & Legon, R. (2017). The changing landscape of online education (CHLOE) 2017. Quality Matters and Eduventures. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/CHLOE-First-Survey-Report.pdf.
  15. Gawande, A. (2010). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  16. Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Stoney, S., & Willis, J. (2001). Quality guidelines for online courses: The development of an instrument to audit online units. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.) Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2001 (pp. 263–270). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffman, G. L. (2012). Using the Quality Matters rubric to improve online cataloging courses. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(2–3), 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosie, P., Schibeci, R., & Backhaus, A. (2005). A framework and checklists for evaluating online learning in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 539–553.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500187097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huguet, M. P. C. (2008). Rethinking instructional design: Considering the instructorA case study. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI No. 3319550).Google Scholar
  20. Illinois Online Network. (2015). Quality online course initiative rubric & checklist. University of Illinois. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/qoci.asp.
  21. Johnson, H., Mejia, M. C., & Cook, K. (2015, June). Successful online courses in California community colleges. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_615HJR.pdf.
  22. 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
  23. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli, E., Dailey, A., & Schulte, M. (2005). A faculty evaluation model for online instructors: Mentoring and evaluation in the online classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  25. Mann, B. L. (2006). Conducting formative evaluations of online instructional materials. In B. L. Mann (Ed.), Selected styles in web-based educational research (pp. 232–242). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mariasingam, M. (2005). Quality criteria and benchmarks for online degree programs. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI No. 305378650).Google Scholar
  27. Mathes, J. (2017). OSCQR course design review for quality of online course design. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/oscqrquality/.
  28. 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
  29. Oliver, M. (2000). An introduction to the evaluation of learning technology. Educational Technology & Society, 3(4), 20–30.Google Scholar
  30. Online Learning Consortium. (2015). The open SUNY COTE quality review (OSCQR) process and rubric. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://oscqr.org/.
  31. Online Learning Consortium. (2017). OLC OSCQR course design review. Retrieved October 5, 2018 from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/oscqr-course-design-review/.
  32. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Parscal, T., & Riemer, D. (2010). Assuring quality in large-scale online course development. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  34. Patton, M. Q. (2003). Utilization-focused evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 223–242). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patton, M. Q. (2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric.
  37. Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voicesViews and experiences with online learning. Results of a national faculty survey, part of the online education benchmarking study. Conducted by the APLU-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, J. M. (2012). Student perceptions of quality and satisfaction in online education. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3550086).Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, A., & McQuiggan, C. (2008). Faculty development programming: If we build it, will they come? Educause Quarterly, 31(3), 28–37.Google Scholar
  40. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  41. The Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence. (2016). OSCQR. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://bbsupport.sln.suny.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/OSCQR/OSCQR-Links-BKP-2016-08-09.html.
  42. Weschke, B., & Canipe, S. (2010). The faculty evaluation process: The first step in fostering professional development in an online university. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 45–57.Google Scholar
  43. Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VIII(c), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.118.Google Scholar
  44. York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 841–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations