Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 49

Internet Learning
grade. It would be helpful to provide an
overall list of assignments, points, percentages
or weights in the syllabus so that
students are acknowledged upfront on
how they will be evaluated without digging
deeper in the Unit content pages.
As mentioned previously, the overall
satisfaction of the course and the instructor
might also affect students’ rating
on the standards as students stated:
Overall, this course has given me a lot of
valuable information that I can use in the
classroom.
I appreciate all the help given to me
throughout the years. This was not an
easy thing to accomplish, but I have and
I will always remember all those that have
helped me succeed.
In course C the results reported by
students and peer reviewers differed significantly
in regards to Standard 2.2 (The
module/unit learning objectives describe
outcomes that are measurable and consistent
with the course-level objectives). The
students were asked to report whether
module/unit objectives were clearly stated
in each unit. While the reviewers look for
solid evidencing of measurable learning
objectives. One reviewer stated:
Standard 2.2 requires that the module/
unit learning objectives describe outcomes
that are measurable and consistent
with the course level objectives. Many of
the module level learning objectives are
overlapping. It is suggested that you develop
unique learning objectives for each
module based on Bloom's taxonomy.
The peer reviewers had expected
the course to meet this standard at or
above 85% level and used this opportunity
to make modification to the course toward
meeting the standards.
Conclusion
Most of the items in the Online
Course Evaluation Tool were designed
according to the Quality
Matters standards and integrate very well
toward measuring the design aspect of online
courses. However, the misfit items will
be dropped (Item 10) or revised (Items 1,
6, 14, and 16) according to the analysis
results. The results from students indicated
that Tier I: to a great extent, Tier II: to
a moderate extent, and Tier III: to little or
some extent, met the standards in the three
courses.
The results on most of the standards
evaluated in this study provided by
both reviewers and students were the same,
thus indicating that both peer reviewers
and students take the same point of view
in terms of evidencing standards; however,
they differed significantly regarding
three of the essential standards. One factor
possibly contributing to this discrepancy
could be that reviewers looked for solid evidencing
of measurable learning outcomes
while students looked for clearly articulated
objectives. The second factor might be
that instructors clarified unclear design
aspects via email while the course was delivered
and not available to the reviewers.
The third factor might be that the reviewers
looked for above average approximately
85%, while students looked for the basic
elements regarding the standards. The reviewers
also perceived that the overall satisfaction
of the course and the instructor
might also affect students’ rating regarding
the essential standards. Further study,
however is needed to investigate the causes
of discrepancy.
48