An online course design checklist: development and users’ perceptions
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.
KeywordsChecklist Course design Evaluation Instructional design Quality
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Sally Baldwin and Yu-Hui Ching declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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.
- 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
- Blackboard. (2017). Blackboard exemplary course program rubric. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://community.blackboard.com/docs/DOC-3505-blackboard-exemplary-course-program-rubric.
- 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.
- 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/.
- California State University. (2015a). Quality assurance for blended and online courses. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/quality-matters/.
- California State University. (2015b). CSU QLT informal review instruments. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qlt-non-award-instruments/.
- Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. University of Oklahoma, 27, 1–33.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Gawande, A. (2010). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
- 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
- Huguet, M. P. C. (2008). Rethinking instructional design: Considering the instructor—A case study. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI No. 3319550).Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Mariasingam, M. (2005). Quality criteria and benchmarks for online degree programs. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI No. 305378650).Google Scholar
- 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/.
- 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
- Oliver, M. (2000). An introduction to the evaluation of learning technology. Educational Technology & Society, 3(4), 20–30.Google Scholar
- Online Learning Consortium. (2015). The open SUNY COTE quality review (OSCQR) process and rubric. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://oscqr.org/.
- Online Learning Consortium. (2017). OLC OSCQR course design review. Retrieved October 5, 2018 from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/oscqr-course-design-review/.
- Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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
- Patton, M. Q. (2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric.
- Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices—Views 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
- 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
- Taylor, A., & McQuiggan, C. (2008). Faculty development programming: If we build it, will they come? Educause Quarterly, 31(3), 28–37.Google Scholar
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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