25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
What Makes a Quality Online Course?
The Student Perspective
Penny Ralston-Berg, M.S.
Senior Instructional Designer
University of Wisconsin-Extension
Leda Nath, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Sociology
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Introduction
Quality can be defined as an educational system in which the learner has a reasonable opportunity for
success (Ragan & Sax, 2005). Of the existing quality benchmark tools, Quality Matters is seen as a
comprehensive, research-based resource with value as a faculty professional development tool, a basic
design checklist for instructional designers, and a course quality assurance tool.
The Quality Matters (QM) program offers quality assurance through a rubric for online course design.
The rubric includes eight dimensions (i.e., course overview and introduction; learning objectives;
assessment and measurement; resources and materials; learner engagement; course technology; learner
support; and accessibility), (“Quality,” 2008). The rubric allows instructors teaching online to participate
in a peer review process to check that their course meets the recommended requirements as developed
from years of research, national standards, and a team of scholars (“Research Literature,” 2005). The
rubric lists specific review standards. These represent the features, ranked on a scale of 1-3, 3 being
essential, 2 being very important, and 1 being important according to QM.
Initial research indicates student perspectives of quality in online courses are in line with the Quality
Matters (2005/2006) “Inter-Institutional Quality Assurance in Online Learning” (Ralston-Berg & Nath,
2008). In this initial study of 182 online students, all items in the QM rubric were valuable to students.
Student rankings also suggested that items ranked “2 – Very important” by QM (with the exception of
“Netiquette”) were as important as those marked “3 - Essential”. Results also reinforced that items
marked “1 - Important” by QM were of less value to students. This is consistent with QM’s implied
message that these items, if necessary, can be less often included in course design.
The QM rubric has been validated further through its comparison to accreditation standards for distance
learning (Legon, 2006). Legon concludes that when the QM rubric is compared with the “Best Practices
for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs” endorsed by CHEA and the eight regional
accrediting agencies, the rubric is “fully consistent with published accreditation standards for online
education.” He also concludes that the QM review program can contribute to the quality assurance
processes required for accreditation.
Other aspects of quality related to online courses include quality online teaching, quality of interaction
within an online course, and how different types of interaction or presence contribute to learning
(Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; North American Council for Online Learning, 2008; Stodel, Thompson, &
McDonald, 2006; Young & Norgard, 2006). Although these types of items differ from the online course
quality features in the QM rubric, they may still be present in students’ minds when considering or rating
the “quality” of an online course. These may also be perceived as contributing to student success.
Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
1
25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
This study is an effort to build on previous work and to gain further insight into student perspectives of
quality in online courses. Key questions include:
•
Do students agree that items presented in the 2008-10 QM rubric indicate quality?
•
Are items in the 2008-10 QM rubric perceived as contributors to student success?
•
Are there additional items perceived to contribute to student success not included in the
rubric?
•
How can these student perspectives be tied to instructional design practice?
Methods
Features representing each of eight Quality Matters general review standards were included in an online
survey. The current QM rubric was converted to student-oriented language, (“Quality,” 2008). For
example:
Original: Students have ready access to the technologies required in the course.
Adapted: I have ready access to the technologies required in the course.
Within these QM features, three items were expanded with additional questions to capture more
information about student perspectives of quality as they related to various types of interaction.
Items related to student-instructor interactions include:
•
Learning activities encourage me to interact with my instructor.
•
Instructor shares personal insights and experiences above and beyond the reading
assignments.
•
Clear standards are set for instructor response and availability (turn-around time for
email, grade posting, etc.).
•
Instructor actively participates in the class discussions.
•
Instructor summarizes and guides the class discussions.
•
Instructor does not participate in class discussions.
•
Instructor posts weekly class announcements or sends weekly announcements through
email.
Items related to student-content interaction include:
•
Learning activities encourage me to interact with content in the course.
•
Course contains audio and video content.
•
Course contains interactive games or simulations.
•
Course contains instructional graphics that help explain complex concepts.
Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
2
25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
•
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
I create course-related content and share it with instructor and classmates.
Items related to student-student interaction include:
•
Learning activities encourage me to interact with other students.
•
I share my ideas, opinions, and findings with my classmates in a public forum.
•
Opportunity to ask questions of other students and get help from sources other than the
instructor.
•
I coach other students and help answer their questions.
•
I work in groups with other students.
•
I use wikis, shared documents, or other online collaborative tools to complete group
work.
Students were asked to only consider the online course environment while rating the list of features in
terms of “how they contribute to student success” using a likert scale (i.e., 0 = Not at all important - does
not contribute to my success; 1 = Important; 2 = Very important; 3 = Essential – could not succeed
without it).
Open response questions were used to capture any perspectives not represented by survey items. These
included:
•
Please briefly mention any other features you feel would contribute to your success in an
online course but were not mentioned in this survey.
•
Tell us what you feel are the greatest barriers/obstacles are to learning online.
•
In your opinion, what makes a quality online course?
Students were also informed that by quality we meant how much they perceive these features as
contributing to their success in an online course.
Students from institutions participating in the study will be randomly surveyed online as to what degree
they feel the Quality Matters and additional course features contribute to their success. Students must
have completed at least one online course to participate in the study.
Results are not available at the time of this writing.
References
Garrison, D.R. & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of Inquiry Framework: Review,
Issues, and Future Directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Legon, R. (2006). Comparison of the Quality Matters rubric to accreditation standards for distance
learning. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from
Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
3
25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
http://www.qualitymatters.org/Documents/Comparison%20of%20the%20Quality%20Matters%2
0Rubric%20-%20Summary.pdf
North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). (2008). NACOL National standards for quality
online teaching. Retrieved May 1, 2009,
from http://www.inacol.org/resources/nationalstandards/index.php
Quality Matters rubric standards 2008-2010 edition with assigned point values. (2008). Retrieved May 1,
2009, from http://qminstitute.org/home/Public%20Library/About%20QM/RubricStandards20082010.pdf
Ragan, L. & Sax, C. (2005). Defining and implementing quality assurance standards for online courses.
Presentation at EDUCAUSE Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.
Ralston-Berg, P. & Nath, L. (2008). What makes a quality online course? The student perspective. Paper
presented at Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.
Research literature and standards sets support for quality matters review standards. (2005). Retrieved
January 14, 2008, from
http://www.qualitymatters.org/Documents/Matrix%20of%20Research%20Standards%20FY0506.
pdf
Stodel, E. J. Thompson, T. L. & McDonald, C. (2006). Learners' perspectives on what is missing from
online learning: Interpretations through the community of inquiry framework.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3), 1-24.
Young, A. & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective.
Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107-115.
Author Summaries
Penny Ralston-Berg is an Instructional Designer for the Penn State World Campus.
Address:
E-mail:
URL:
Phone:
Fax:
ralston-berg@learn.uwsa.edu
http://www.uwex.edu/ce/
608-262-8095
608-265-9396
Leda Nath, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, teaches Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology
and Criminal Justice at UW-Whitewater.
Address: White 415
UW-Whitewater
800 West Main Street
Whitewater, WI 53190
E-mail: nathl@uww.edu
Phone: 262-472-1125
Fax:
262-472-2803
Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
4
25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
5