Academic Leadership Perceptions of Online Program Quality and Course Design
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i2.4410Keywords:
online quality, distance education, course design, academic leaders, instructional design, online programs, Online Learning Consortium Quality ScorecardAbstract
The purpose of this study was to examine college and university leaders’ background in, perceptions of, and experiences with the administration of high-quality online programs and design of online courses. The population of this study included academic leaders at higher education institutions within the state of Texas from 2 and 4-year undergraduate and graduate, public and private, for-profit and not-for-profit institutions that had at least one 100% online program. A quantitative research design was used through the distribution of a survey that contained two parts: part one asked questions related to the background demographics of the leader and their respective institution while part two was a replication of two sections of the Online Learning Consortium’s Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs. Data were analyzed through multiple methods including descriptive, correlation, and causal comparative statistics. Findings include describing current academic leaders’ and institutions’ background demographics and the perception of online program quality held by academic leaders. Recommendations are provided to institutions looking to improve online program quality or hire an administrator for online programs. Online program quality may be improved by institutions establishing a process for the development/redesign of online courses, establishing course development standards, and requiring faculty to collaborate with instructional designers.
References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Babson Survey Research Group, & Quahog Research Group, L. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572777.pdf
Baldwin, S. J., Ching, Y. H., & Friesen, N. (2018). Online course design and development among college and university instructors: An analysis using grounded theory. Online Learning, 22(2), 157–171. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1181407.pdf
Baldwin, S., Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 62(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0215-z
Bazluki, M., Gyabak, K., & Udermann, B. (2018). Instructor feedback on a formal online course quality assurance review process. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(2), 1–9. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1183063
Bigatel, P. M., & Edel-Malizia, S. (2018). Using the “indicators of engaged learning online” framework to evaluate online course quality. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 62(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0239-4
Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2021). Critical design elements in online courses. Distance Education, 42(3), 352–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1956301
Brown, V. (2018). Scaling up while maintaining quality in online degree development. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(3), 1–9. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1191465
Fredericksen, E. E. (2017). A national study of online learning leaders in U.S. higher education. Online Learning, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i2.1164
Garrett, R., Legon, R., & Fredericksen, E. E., (2020a). CHLOE 4: Navigating the mainstream: The Changing Landscape of Online Education 2020. Quality Matters. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-4-report-2020
Garrett, R., Legon, R., Fredericksen, E. E., & Simunich, B. (2020b). CHLOE 5: The pivot to remote teaching in Spring 2020 and its impact. Quality Matters. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-5-report-2020
Inside Higher Education. (2019). 2019 Survey of faculty attitudes on technology. https://www.insidehighered.com/system/files/media/IHE_2019_Faculty_Tech_Survey_20191030.pdf
Laerd Statistics. (2018). One-way ANOVA (cont…).
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/one-way-anova-statistical-guide-4.php
Lewis, E. (2021). Best practices for improving the quality of the online course design and learners experience. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 69(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2020.1776558
Littlefield, M. B., Rubinstein, K., & Laveist, C. B. (2019). Designing for quality: Distance education rubrics for online MSW programs. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39(4/5), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2019.1658691
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. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1074062.pdf
Means, B., Neisler, J., & Langer Research Associates. (2020). Suddenly online: A national survey of undergraduates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital Promise. https://digitalpromise.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ELE_CoBrand_DP_FINAL_3.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). How many students take distance learning courses at the postsecondary level? https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). College navigator. https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?s=TX&l=92+93+94&ct=1+2+3&ic=1+2
Nemetz, P. L., Eager, W. M., & Limpaphayom, W. (2017). Comparative effectiveness and student choice for online and face-to-face classwork. Journal of Education for Business, 92(5), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017.1331990
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 309–319. https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf
Online Learning Consortium. (2018). OLC quality scorecard for the administration of online programs. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-administration-online-programs/
Online Learning Consortium. (2021a). OLC quality scorecard suit. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-history/
Online Learning Consortium. (2021b). OLC quality scorecard review. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-review/
Paolucci, R., & Gambescia, S. F. (2007). Current administrative structures used for online
program offerings in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 10(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1065642
Parscale, S. L., Dumont, J. F., & Plessner, V. R. (2015). The effect of quality management theory on assessing student learning outcomes. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 80(4), 19–30.
Pedro, N. S., & Kumar, S. (2020). Institutional support for online teaching in quality assurance frameworks. Online Learning, 24(3), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2309
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010). Educational transformation through online learning: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 17–35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ909909.pdf
Sadaf, A., Martin, F., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2019). Student perceptions of the impact of quality matters–certified online courses on their learning and engagement. Online Learning Journal, 23(4), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2009
Sanford, D. (2017). Course format and learning: The moderating role of overall academic performance. International Journal of Management Education, 15, 490–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.08.003
Sauder, D., & DeMars, C. (2020). Applying a multiple comparison control to IRT item-fit testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1789138
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. In Babson Survey Research Group. Babson Survey Research Group. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580852.pdf
Scoppio, G., & Luyt, I. (2017). Mind the gap: Enabling online faculty and instructional designers in mapping new models for quality online courses. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9452-y
Shelton, K. (2010). A quality scorecard for the administration of online education programs: A Delphi study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v14i4.163
Teo, T. (2013). Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research. Brill Sense.
Tannehill, D. B., Serapiglia, C. P., & Guiler, J. K. (2018). Administrative or faculty control of online course development and teaching: A comparison of three institutions. Information Systems Education Journal, 16(3), 26–34. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1179295.pdf
Ulrich, J., & Karvonen, M. (2011). Faculty instructional attitudes, interest, and intention: Predictors of web 2.0 use in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.001
Zimmerman, W., Altman, B., Simunich, B., Shattuck, K., & Burch, B. (2020). Evaluating online course quality: A study on implementation of course quality standards. Online Learning, 24(4), 147–163. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1277443.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Amanda Goetzke, Andrew Lumpe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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
