Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards

Abstract

The issue of quality is becoming front and centre as online and distance education moves into the mainstream of higher education. Many believe collaborative course development is the best way to design quality online courses. This research uses a case study approach to probe into the collaborative course development process and the implementation of quality standards at a Canadian university. Four cases are presented to discuss the effects of the faculty member/instructional designer relationship on course quality, as well as the issues surrounding the use of quality standards as a development tool. Findings from the study indicate that the extent of collaboration depends on the degree of course development and revision required, the nature of the established relationship between the faculty member and designer, and the level of experience of the faculty member. Recommendations for the effective use of quality standards using collaborative development processes are provided.

Faculty Perceptions about Teaching Online: Exploring the Literature Using the Technology Acceptance Model as an Organizing Framework

“…For example, some researchers discovered that faculty viewed new technologies positively because learning about them was a professional development opportunity or a way to grow intellectually (Chapman, 2011;Green et al, 2009;McQuiggan, 2012;Pandra & Mishra, 2007;Seaman, 2009). Faculty also appreciated access to high-quality training and support programs and other forms of mentoring to help them be successful teaching online (Alsofyani et al, 2012;Chao et al, 2010;Chapman, 2011;Green et al, 2009;McQuiggan, 2012;Shea et al, 2005;Wang & Wang, 2009). Other studies showed that instructors were motivated when their achievements in teaching online were highlighted or recognized with an award by their institution (Bacow et al, 2012;Gautreau, 2011;Mason et al, 2010).…”

“…Faculty have also claimed that they valued collaboration with instructional designers who could help them design their online courses to make them more student-centric (Chao, Saj, & Hamilton, 2010;DeGagne & Walters, 2010;Johnson, 2008;McQuiggan, 2012;Ryan et al, 2005). This student-centric approach was also valued by the 10 faculty participating in a qualitative study by Orr and colleagues (2009), as all participants claimed that their major motivation in teaching online was meeting the needs of students.…”

The future of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) is in the hands of the anonymous, grey non-descript mid-level professional manager.

“…Much has been written about how, for example, academic staff may find considerable demands on their time as a result of TEL (Chao, Saj, & Hamilton, 2010;Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison, 2012;Gregory & Lodge, 2015;Njenga & Fourie, 2010) and may need to be compensated or incentivised to embrace TEL (Hanson, 2009;Porter, Graham, Spring, & Welch, 2014). It is unusual to come across a research piece on TEL that does not have as one of its recommendations the need to train and develop academic staff in TEL and reinforce their existing role with increased support.…”

Process Management for e-Learning Quality

“…According to [18] in most conventional higher education institutions, the process of course development is carried out alone and without specific queries. The same authors state that the emergency delivery of online courses is contributing to change these processes to develop these courses.…”

“…According to [22] it was released in 2002 having been changed to be launched in the global market in 2004 as OeLQs (Open eQuality Learning Standards). It is very important to the review and evaluation of course content, design, for policies, management practices and student support [18].…”