Online Course Quality Checklist

The following checklist is a brief look at some of the standards found on the LSC online course peer review rubric.  Use it as a guide while developing new courses or in refining existing ones.  Want more information and valuable feedback?  Have a course peer reviewed by a team of your online colleagues!

• Does the course contain an introductory statement?
• Is the course layout, as designed by the instructor, easy to navigate and understand?
• Are academic honesty expectations listed clearly in the course?
• Do the course outcomes on the syllabus match the official course outline outcomes?
• Are all instructions to students easy to understand?
• Are multiple methods of assessment used?
• Is the grading policy easy to locate and understand?
• Is course activity feedback provided to students?
• Are directions for contacting the instructor and student mentor (if used) clear and specific?
• Does the course design provide learning activities to foster instructor-student and, if appropriate, student-student interaction?
• Are the student requirements for course interaction clearly articulated?
• Do the tools and media used support the course outcomes and integrate with the texts and lesson assignments?
• Is there evidence of effort to recognize the importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements (Is text size changeable?  Are any colors contrasting and easy to view?  Is the official disabilities statement included on the syllabus?)

Students who attend classes on campus know they’ll see their instructor during classtime and can arrange to meet with an instructor during posted office hours.  Online students don’t always know when to expect to hear from their instructors, when class activities will be graded, etc.  Simply placing approximate turnaround times for email responses and posted grades on the syllabus, course overview, and/or homepage can help to alleviate student concerns and questions.

I did not originally have posted turnaround times in my courses (thanks to a peer review, I now do!).  Since including this information, I have noticed fewer student questions about when grades will be posted, etc.  Students know that I will have assignment 1 corrected before assignment 2 is due, for example.  Having this information posted also holds me accountable and can serve as a motivitator to get work corrected on time!  :)

Susan recommends using the standards of the peer review rubric to create a more simplistic online course checklist to give to first-time online faculty who are working on developing courses.  This checklist could also be made available to all online faculty—particularly those who are tentatively interested in having a course reviewed and would like to quickly see how their course might fare before the review itself.

So, watch for this online course quality checklist sometime in the new year, as I’ll be putting it together over the holiday break.

Rubric standard I.5 states: The self-introductions by the instructor and student mentor (if utilized) are available and appropriate.

Ideally, an instructor’s introduction will go beyond the essentials which might include the instructor’s name, title, field of expertise, and contact information. Including information such as past experiences with teaching online, personal teaching philosophies, hobbies, and so on can help to create a sense of connection between the instructor and the students. Building that connection can help to put nervous students at ease, as they may feel more comfortable asking course-related questions of both the instructor and fellow classmates.

Rubric standard I.6 states: Students are requested to introduce themselves to the class.

The first online course I took (interesting to take an online course after having taught online for years!) did not include a forum for student introductions. Instead of feeling that I was part of a class, I felt alone—as though I was taking an independent study class. As a result, I beefed up the introduction requirement in my own classes, asking students not only to introduce themselves, but to post one or two things they hoped to learn in class, as well. It’s been a positive move!

Photo by: www.northernimages.com

 The rubric standard states: Netiquette guidelines for the course, including etiquette regarding discussions and email communications, are clearly stated.

 It is important to note that the stated guidelines themselves are not evaluated during a peer review.  Reviewers are just to make sure that some netiquette guidelines are in place.

When writing netiquette guidelines, consider explanations of:

• Rules of conduct for participating in discussions.
• Rules of conduct for communicating via email.
• Speaking style requirements (correct English? slang ok?)
• Spelling and grammar expectations, if any.

When conducting a review, if it isn’t already found in an LSC instructor’s course, I recommend the following link be added:  http://www.lsc.edu/Online/Start/netiquette.cfm  You’ll find our Code of Conduct/LSC Media Use Policy there as well as a couple of very helpful netiquette links.

Of course, I need to add that some of the recommendations found above are from the rubric annotations that the LSC peer review team adapted from MarylandOnline’s Quality Matters program.  They did good work!

 I’d love to hear comments from readers!  Anything in particular you’d like me to address regarding online course peer review?

LSC peer review standard I.3 states: Expectations regarding academic honesty, including plagiarism concerns, are clearly stated in the instructor’s course syllabus.

At a minimum, in order to meet this standard, the following statement must appear on an LSC course syllabus: Charges of academic misconduct will be brought to the attention of the student and disciplinary actions will be taken. See the Lake Superior College Student Code of Conduct for further details http://www.lsc.edu/Policy/policy3_6_1.cfm

It’s never a bad idea to have information addressing this issue in multiple areas of the class. On every class assignment I remind students that they are to use their own words, use original examples, etc. Some students really struggle with not lifting sentences or phrases directly from the textbook or other class resources. Extra reminders can’t hurt! In addition to the Code of Conduct mentioned above, this is what I have on my syllabi: All responses to assignment questions must be original. Turning in an assignment written (wholly or partially) by someone else is considered plagiarism. Taking someone else’s words without documenting the author is considered plagiarism. Copied work will not be tolerated and will earn zero points and a possible F for the class. Many LSC online instructors have course orientation quizzes that incorporate academic honesty policies in them. If you do something other than what is listed above, I’d love to hear about it!

Our Virtual Campus distributed an excellent brochure this fall which included quite detailed information about academic honesty policies on our campus: http://www.lsc.edu/Fall%202006%20Brochure1.pdf

• a course syllabus
• a calendar with all course activities/deadlines included
• course activities
• grading system
• quizzing procedures (online, proctored, etc.)
• procedure for submission of assignments
• discussion instructions

As the designer of a course, it’s easy to think your online course is highly navigable. Having others enter your course for the first time to provide feedback to you about its navigability can be extremely valuable! Oftentimes, just a couple of small changes can make a confusing course a straightforward one.

Another good source of information, of course, are the MnSCU Web Accessibility Guidelines found here:  http://webmasters.mnscu.edu/access/guidelines/

Barry Dahl, LSC Vice President of Technology and the Virtual Campus, writes a great deal more about accessibility issues in the October 6th entry of his blog:  http://desire2blog.blogspot.com/

Peer review rubric standard VIII.1 states:  There is evidence of effort to recognize the importance of ADA requirements (such as equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content, webpage links that are self-describing and meaningful, and information conveyed on webpages in color is also available without color).  

Generally, as peer reviewers, we find that most online instructors do make an effort to provide accessible courses.  Recommendations we seem to make most frequently include avoiding colorful backgrounds (stick to white), use colorful text sparingly–and when using it, use bold, as well, use alt tags for all graphics, and any audio used should also be made available in written form.  In addition, it is required that faculty include the following statement on their syllabi regarding disability services available to students: 

Individuals who have a documented disability which might affect their ability to perform in this class are encouraged to inform the instructor and the Disabilties Coordinator, E2114 (218)733-7650 (voice) or (218)722-6893 (TTY), at the start of the semester.  All discussions will remain confidential.

For those of you who did not attend the workshop, let me catch you up a bit. In a nutshell, about 3 years ago LSC adapted online course peer review documents from MarylandOnline’s Quality Matters program to fit the needs of our college. Last year we conducted over 20 peer reviews on courses volunteered by LSC faculty. This year our goal is to complete at least 15 reviews, although we’re running a bit low on faculty volunteers this time around. Just a new challenge/stage of the process!

Check out the documents we use during the peer review process by clicking on the links on the above navigation bar.

Please be sure to check in by posting a comment before you sign-off (did I mention that already?).  When you comment, you’ll see a button labeled “abschicken”. This is German for “post”—so make sure to click on it after you type in your comment. It’s a default language setting I can’t seem to change—and a rather humorous one at that, I think!

Photo used with permission from www.northernimages.com