Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 41
Internet Learning
quality from a student’s persepctive. Tier
I contains the items that students strongly
agreed with, which indicates the course
met Standards 3.3 (Item 7), 3.2 (Item 15),
3.2 (Item 15) to a great extent. Tier II contains
the items that students agreed with,
thereby indicating that the course met
these standards to a moderate extent. Tier
III contains items that students agreed with
to some extent, thus indicating that the
course did not meet Standards 7.2 (Item
24) and 8.1 (Item 25).
Course C
Twenty out of the 22 students completed
the course design evaluation survey
with a response rate of 90.91%. The person
reliability was 0.96 and the item reliability
was 0.78.
The item statistics indicate that
Item 10 (MNSQ = 2.83) will be dropped
and Item 12 (MNSQ = 2.64) and Item 6
(MNSQ = 2.60) will need to be revised if
the instrument is used in the future.
The Item Map (Fig. 3) indicates that
there are three tiers regarding course quality
from a student’s persepctive. Tier I contains
the item that students strongly agreed
with, indicating the course met Standard
2.2 (Item 5) to a great extent. Tier II contains
the items that students agreed with,
thus showing that the course met these
standards to a moderate extent. Tier III
contains the item that students agreed to
some extent, demonstrating that the course
did not meet Standard (Item 10), a non-essential
standard.
To satisfy the third objective of this
project the data were treated as follows:
used as at or above 85% level and coded as
“1”. Student responses of to a moderate extent
“3”, to some extent “2” and to little or no
extent “1” were used as below 85% level and
coded as “0”. According to the majority
rule principle if 2/3 of the students selects
to a great extent “4” or to a very great extent
“5” for an item in the survey then it was
determined that the course met that particular
standard from a student’s perspective.
See Tables 1, 2, and 3.
• Three QM certified peer reviewers reviewed
the three courses according to QM
standards and recorded their scores in a
spreadsheet. If a standard was met, “1” was
recorded for the standard. If a standard was
not met, “0” was recorded for the standard.
If two (2/3) of the peer reviewers assigned a
score to a specific standard then the course
met that standard from a peer reviewer’s
perspective. See Tables 1, 2, and 3.
The data were treated in a spreadsheet
and analyzed with SPSS. A nonparametric
Mann-Whitney U test (2 independent
samples) was used to evaluate
a difference in medians between the two
groups (students and peer reviewers). The
two groups were different and independent
of each other even though peer reviewers
are asked to take a student’s view when
completing course reviews.
• Students’ results were converted into a
measure comparable to that of the reviewers’
rating. Student responses of to a great
extent “4” or to a very great extent “5” were
40