Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An online course design checklist: development and users’ perceptions

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines users’ perceptions of an online course design checklist. We created the Online Course Design Checklist (OCDC) to help highlight very basic criteria that may improve the quality of online courses. The OCDC highlights criteria that should not be ignored during online course development. It is based on components of established instructional design principles and existing online course design evaluation instruments. To understand course designers’ perception of the OCDC, we surveyed nineteen current and prospective online instructors on their use of it. Participants found the OCDC facilitated online course design by providing criteria to consider before, during, and after online course design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arriaga, A. F., Bader, A. M., Wong, J. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Berry, W. R., Ziewacz, J. E., et al. (2013). Simulation-based trial of surgical-crisis checklists. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(3), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1204720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, S. J. (2017). Adaptation and acceptance in online course design from four-year college and university instructors: An analysis using grounded theory. Doctoral dissertation. https://doi.org/10.18122/B28T4W.

  • Baldwin, S., Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2018). Online course design: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (2013). Face-to-face versus online course evaluations: A “consumer’s guide” to seven strategies. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 140–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackboard. (2017). Blackboard exemplary course program rubric. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://community.blackboard.com/docs/DOC-3505-blackboard-exemplary-course-program-rubric.

  • California Community College Online Education Initiative. (2016). Course design rubric for the online education initiative. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://ccconlineed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/OEI_CourseDesignRubric_Nov2016-3.pdf.

  • California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016). Online course design standards. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://ccconlineed.org/faculty-resources/professional-development/online-course-design-standards/.

  • California State University. (2015a). Quality assurance for blended and online courses. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/quality-matters/.

  • California State University. (2015b). CSU QLT informal review instruments. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qlt-non-award-instruments/.

  • Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. Y., & Ahn, S. H. (2010). Quality assurance for online programs. International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, 2(4), 88–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. University of Oklahoma, 27, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R., & Legon, R. (2017). The changing landscape of online education (CHLOE) 2017. Quality Matters and Eduventures. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/CHLOE-First-Survey-Report.pdf.

  • Gawande, A. (2010). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Stoney, S., & Willis, J. (2001). Quality guidelines for online courses: The development of an instrument to audit online units. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.) Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2001 (pp. 263–270). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.

  • Hoffman, G. L. (2012). Using the Quality Matters rubric to improve online cataloging courses. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(2–3), 158–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosie, P., Schibeci, R., & Backhaus, A. (2005). A framework and checklists for evaluating online learning in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500187097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huguet, M. P. C. (2008). Rethinking instructional design: Considering the instructor—A case study. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI No. 3319550).

  • Illinois Online Network. (2015). Quality online course initiative rubric & checklist. University of Illinois. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/qoci.asp.

  • Johnson, H., Mejia, M. C., & Cook, K. (2015, June). Successful online courses in California community colleges. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_615HJR.pdf.

  • Kleen, B., & Soule, L. (2010). Reflections on online course design—Quality Matters™ evaluation and student feedback: An exploratory study. Issues in Information Systems, 11(2), 152–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli, E., Dailey, A., & Schulte, M. (2005). A faculty evaluation model for online instructors: Mentoring and evaluation in the online classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, B. L. (2006). Conducting formative evaluations of online instructional materials. In B. L. Mann (Ed.), Selected styles in web-based educational research (pp. 232–242). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mariasingam, M. (2005). Quality criteria and benchmarks for online degree programs. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI No. 305378650).

  • Mathes, J. (2017). OSCQR course design review for quality of online course design. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/oscqrquality/.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2000). An introduction to the evaluation of learning technology. Educational Technology & Society, 3(4), 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Online Learning Consortium. (2015). The open SUNY COTE quality review (OSCQR) process and rubric. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from http://oscqr.org/.

  • Online Learning Consortium. (2017). OLC OSCQR course design review. Retrieved October 5, 2018 from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/oscqr-course-design-review/.

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parscal, T., & Riemer, D. (2010). Assuring quality in large-scale online course development. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2003). Utilization-focused evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 223–242). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric.

  • Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices—Views and experiences with online learning. Results of a national faculty survey, part of the online education benchmarking study. Conducted by the APLU-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.

  • Simpson, J. M. (2012). Student perceptions of quality and satisfaction in online education. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3550086).

  • Taylor, A., & McQuiggan, C. (2008). Faculty development programming: If we build it, will they come? Educause Quarterly, 31(3), 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York, NY: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence. (2016). OSCQR. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://bbsupport.sln.suny.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/OSCQR/OSCQR-Links-BKP-2016-08-09.html.

  • Weschke, B., & Canipe, S. (2010). The faculty evaluation process: The first step in fostering professional development in an online university. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VIII(c), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.118.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 841–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boise State University, Boise, USA

    Sally J. Baldwin & Yu-Hui Ching

Authors
  1. Sally J. Baldwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu-Hui Ching
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally J. Baldwin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Sally Baldwin and Yu-Hui Ching declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Instructional Design Checklist for Online Courses Survey

The purpose of this survey is to collect your feedback regarding the Online Course Design Checklist. Your participation is voluntary. Your participation would be very much appreciated to help develop a better understanding of practitioners’ thoughts regarding the use of a course design checklist, and this checklist in particular.

How did you use the checklist?

   ○   As designed, with breaks between the three columns as work progressed

   ○   At the end of the design process

   ○   Not at all

Were you satisfied with the checklist, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with it, or dissatisfied with it?

   ○   Extremely satisfied

   ○   Satisfied

   ○   Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

   ○   Dissatisfied

Did using the checklist change the course design process?

   ○   A great deal

   ○   A lot

   ○   A moderate amount

   ○   A little

   ○   Not at all

How easy was the checklist to understand?

   ○   Extremely easy

   ○   Easy

   ○   Neither easy nor hard

   ○   Hard

   ○   Extremely hard

Would you use the checklist in the future?

   ○   Very likely

   ○   Likely

   ○   Not sure

   ○   Unlikely

   ○   Very unlikely

How satisfied are you with your course design?

   ○   Extremely satisfied

   ○   Satisfied

   ○   Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

   ○   Dissatisfied

   ○   Extremely dissatisfied

What do you like about the checklist? Please be specific.

What would you change about the format of the checklist?

What would you change regarding the content of the checklist?

How many online courses have you previously designed?

   ○   None

   ○   1–2 courses

   ○   3–4 courses

   ○   5 + courses

What is your profession?

What instructional design related courses have you taken before?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baldwin, S.J., Ching, YH. An online course design checklist: development and users’ perceptions. J Comput High Educ 31, 156–172 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9199-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9199-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation