Student Perceptions of the Impact of “Quality Matters” Certified Online Courses on their Learning and Engagement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2009Keywords:
Quality Matters, online learning, student engagement, student learningAbstract
The Quality Matters (QM) is one of the most widely-adopted set of standards for best practices in online courses to promote student learning. In this study, we examined student perceptions of the impact of QM certified courses on students learning and engagement. Fifty graduate students enrolled in online courses completed a survey developed based on the QM rubric items. The QM framework includes 43 standards in eight categories. Among eight categories, Course Activities and Learner Interactionwere rated to have the highest impact and Learning Objectiveswere rated to have the second highest impact on both student learning and engagement. The exploratory factor analysis revealed that 12 factors explained 88.89% of the variance of the impact on learning and 8 factors explained 85.72% of the variance of the impact on engagement. Clear expectations loaded as the highest factor for both learning and engagement.
References
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 2, 15-44.
Alizadeh, M., Mehran, P., Koguchi, I., & Takemura, H. (2019). Evaluating a blended course for Japanese learners of English: why Quality Matters. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 6.
Aman, P. R. (2009). Improving learner satisfaction and retention with online instruction through systematic faculty peer review of courses. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Banna, J., Lin, M. F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of online learning and teaching, 11(2), 249.
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). “The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes.” Educational Psychologist, 49 (4), 219–243.
Davies, R. S., Howell, S. L., & Petrie, J. A. (2010). A review of trends in distance education scholarship at research universities in North America, 1998-2007. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 42-56.
Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate students’ perceptions of online learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27, 1-13.
Finley, D. L. (2005). Effect of a QM reviewed course on learner evaluation. (Unpublished final report). [2004 QM Research Grant] Largo, MD: Author.
Hannafin, M. J., Phillips, T. L., Rieber, L. P., & Garhart, C. (1987). The effects of orienting activities and cognitive processing time on factual and inferential learning, Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35(2), 75-84.
Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., & Barczyk, C. (2015). Closing the feedback loop: Hearing the student voice in course quality. Quality Approaches in Higher Education, 6(1), 26-31.
Jonsson, A. (2014). Rubrics as a way of providing transparency in assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 840-852.
Knapp, B. &, Paull, J. (2013, September). Measuring the impact on learner engagement in the redesigned blended course using Quality Matters Standards. 2013 QM Research Grant presentation at the 4th annual Quality Matters Conference, Nashville, TN. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/measuring-impact-student-engagement-redesigned-blended-course-using-standards
Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
Legon, R. (2006, September). Comparison of the Quality Matters Rubric to Accreditation Standards for Distance Learning. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Comparison%20of%20the%20Quality%20Matters%20Rubric%20-%20Summary.pdf
Legon, R., & Runyon, J. (2007, August). Research on the impact of the quality matters course review process. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. Madison, WI.
Legon, R., Runyon, J., & Aman, R. (2007). The impact of “Quality Matters” standards on courses: Research opportunities and results. In 13th International Sloan-C Conference on Online Learning, Orlando, FL.
Legon, R. (2015). Measuring the impact of the Quality Matters Rubric™: A discussion of possibilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 166-173.
Martin, F., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2007). The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 623-636.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge university press.
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–114.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Murphy, W. (2000). “I hope this goes somewhere”: Evaluation of an online discussion group. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 239-257.
Ralston-Berg, P. (2014). Surveying learner perspectives of quality: Value of QM Rubric items. Internet Learning, 3(1), 116-126.
Ralston-Berg, P., & Nath, L. (2008, August). What makes a quality online course? The student perspective. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on distance teaching and learning.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 35(4), 435-448.
Reiser, R. A., & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers. Allyn and Bacon.
Rourke, L. & Anderson, T. (2002). Using Peer Teams to Lead Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (1).
Runyon, J. M (2006). Quality in design: Impact on learner achievement. [2005 QM Research Grant]. Unpublished final report. College of Southern Maryland, LaPlata, MD: Author.
Shattuck, K. (2015). Research inputs and outputs of Quality Matters: Update to 2012 and 2014 versions of What We’re Learning from QM-Focused Research. Annapolis, MD: Quality Matters.
Shattuck, K., Zimmerman, W. A., & Adair, D. (2014). Continuous improvement of the QM rubric and review processes: Scholarship of integration and application. Internet Learning, 3(1), 5.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The internet and higher education, 7(1), 59-70.
Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 81-88.
Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.
Walker, C. H. (2016). The correlation between types of instructor-student communication in online graduate courses and student satisfaction levels in the private university setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carson-Newman University, Tennessee.
Young, M. R. (2014). Integrating Quality Matters into hybrid course design: A principles of marketing case study. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(3), 233-243.
Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 107-115.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
