Online Quality Course Design vs. Quality Teaching
Aligning Quality Matters Standards to Principles for Good Teaching
Keywords:
Online teaching, Course design, Quality teaching, QM, Quality MattersAbstract
Problem: Given previous research in the areas of online course design and principles for good teaching, more research is needed to examine the connection between good design and good teaching.
Research Questions: How do the 2013 QM higher education rubric standards align with the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education? What additional principles for practices for good undergraduate education may be necessary?
Research Method: An online survey was conducted in which participants were asked to align the 2013 Quality Matters higher education rubric standards with the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education developed by Chickering and Gamson (1987).
Data collection Procedures and Analysis: Using a Web-based survey, participants categorized the QM higher education standards into the seven principles or added a good teaching principle based on their perceptions and experience. Responses were calculated and distributions were provided.
Findings: The participants noted good alignment with the majority of the principles for good teaching. However, participants indicated the smallest alignment between the QM standards and the following two principles of good teaching: Gives Prompt Feedback and Emphasizes Time on Task. Findings also noted an eighth principle of good teaching: Professionalism.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The results of this research have definite implications for QM, online faculty, and instructional designers. As QM continues to update general and specific standards, the results of this research may provide thought for consideration for future revisions of the rubrics. As Gives Prompt Feedback and Emphasizes Time on Task were rated the lowest for alignment with the QM standards, this may indicate the QM higher education rubric may need to be edited to more fully align with these principles of good teaching. It may also indicate the intended specific language in the QM rubric may need to be edited for clearer understanding. Online faculty may become more aware of the importance of conducting quality reviews of online courses. Faculty and instructional designers may also become cognizant of how good design impacts good teaching along with the principles for good teaching. It may be to their advantage to also consider an eighth principle of good teaching–-professionalism.
References
Batts, D., Colaric, S., & McFadden, C. (2006). Online courses demonstrate use of seven principles. Internal Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(12), 15-24. Retrieved from http://69.36.77.223/Journal/Dec_06/Dec_06.pdf
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Chapman, B., & Henderson, R. (Winter 2010). E-learning quality assurance: A perspective of business teacher educators and distance learning coordinators. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 52(1), 16-31.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 99(80), 75-81.
Contreras, A. (2013). Start here: Instructional design models for online courses. Retrieved October 5, 2012, from Online Learning Insights: http://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/start-here-instructionaldesign-models-for-online-courses/
Crews, T. B. (2006). Offering an online degree in business education. In S. D. Lewis, M. Balachandran, & R. B. Blair (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of business education through innovative programs, NBEA Yearbook (Vol. 44, pp. 161-172). Reston, VA: National Business Education Association.
Crews, T. B., & Brown, H. F. (Fall 2003). Business education online: Beliefs and perceived needs. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 45(3), 215-227.
Crews, T. B., & Wilkinson, K. (2011a). Assessment in online environments. In L. G. Snyder (Ed.), Online business education, NBEA yearbook. (Vol. 49, pp. 111-123). Reston, VA: National Business Education Association.
Crews, T. B., & Wilkinson, K. (2011b). Online language: Communicating with students. MaxKnowledge Course EL 105 – Training for Online Instructors. Max Knowledge: Maximize Performance. Retrieved from http://www.maxknowledge.com
Crews, T. B., Wilkinson, K., Hemby, K. V., McCannon, M., & Wiedmaier, C. (Fall 2008). Workload management strategies for online educators. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(3), 132-149.
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331. Retrieved from http://www.asanet.org/journals/TS/Oct12TSFeature.pdf
Du, J., Yu, C., & Olinzock, A A. (Winter 2011). Enhancing collaborative learning: Impact of question prompts design for online discussion. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 53(1), 28-41.
Education Commission of the States. (1995). Making quality count in undergraduate education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Filimban, G. (2008). Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of online learning technology at Oregon State University. (Oregon State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Document ID 304500250.
Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, Retrieved from http://technologysource.org/article/seven_principles_of_effective_teaching/
Hall, A. (2010). Quality Matters rubric as teaching presence: Application of community of inquiry framework to analysis of the QM rubric’s effects of student learning. A 2010 QM research grant – Delgado Community College, New Orleans, LA.
Henninger, E. A., & Hurlbert, J. M. (2006). Using the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education: A framework for teaching cultural diversity in a management course. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 12(2), 3-15.
L. E. (Fall 2003). The integration of constructivist theory and socialization to distance (online) learning. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 45(3), 173-182.
McCabe, D., & Meuter, M. (2011). A student view of technology in the classroom: Does it enhance the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education? Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 149-159. Retrieved from http://cdm15970.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15970coll1/id/49
Moallem, M. (2007). Accommodating individual differences in the design of online learning environments: A comparative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 217-245. Retrieved from http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/maclachlan/EDER_679.06_Fall_2009/Individual_Differences.pdf
Newlin, M. H., & Wang, A. Y. (2002). Integrating technology and pedagogy: Web instruction and seven principles of undergraduate education. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 325–330.
Phases of ADDIE. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://home.comcast.net/~jeculler/ADDIE.htm
Quality Matters. (2013a). FIPSE grant project. Quality Matters Program. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/research-grants/fipse
Quality Matters. (2013b). QM research. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/research
Ritter, M., & Lemke, K. (2000). Addressing the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education’ with Internet-enhanced education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(1), 100-108.
Sowan, A., & Jenkins, L. (2013). Use of the seven principles of effective teaching to design and deliver an interactive hybrid nursing research course. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(5), 315-322.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.) Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13-45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2010). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. Springfield, IL: QM Research Grant, University of Illinois.
Thornton, H., & Grant, M. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered learning: Mechanisms for course design and delivery. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 346-356. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/documents/grant.pdf
