Internet Learning Volume 4, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 46

Internet Learning Journal – Volume 4, Issue 1 – Spring 2015
2.3 All learning objectives are clearly
stated and written from my
perspective.
2.2 The module/unit learning
objectives describe outcomes that I
am able to achieve and are
consistent with the course-level
objectives.
5.2 Learning activities encourage me
to interact with my instructor.
5.2 Learning activities encourage me
to interact with other students.
**p < .001, § d > .8, §§ d > 1.0
3041 1.83 0.90 -71.13 .000** -1.16 1.29 §§
3048 1.80 0.89 -74.05 .000** -1.20 1.34 §§
2799 1.53 0.94 -82.67 .000** -1.47 1.56 §§
2710 1.24 0.98 -93.09 .000** -1.76 1.79 §§
While each item assigned a point value of "3" by QM was rated significantly less than 3 by
participants, there were several items with an effect size less than .8 which indicates low
practical significance. The five items where there was not a practically significant difference
between participant ratings and QM's rank related to course navigation and assessments and
grading (QM 1.1, 3.3., 6.3, 3.2, and 3.1). Participants' high ratings of these items indicate
that students place great importance on the inclusion of clear instructions for getting started
in a course and consistent and logical navigation, just as does the QM criteria. Similarly,
like QM, students greatly value clear articulations of evaluation criteria and the grading
policy, as well as the inclusion of assessments that aligned to the other course components.
For all other items ranked a 3 by QM, participants' ratings were statistically and practically
lower than the QM rank, with many items having an effect size greater than 1.0, thus
indicating high practical significance.
There were also several items where participants' ratings were at least one full point lower
than QM's rank of 3 (QM 5.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.2). Participants' ratings of these items indicate that
students do not place as much importance on clearly stated learning objectives that describe
achievable outcomes as does the research on which QM's criteria are based. Similarly,
participants do not value learning objectives that encourage interaction at the same level as
the QM framework.
Table 2 shows the survey items that correspond to a QM indicator assigned a point value of
“2 – Very Important” on the 2011-2013 QM rubric. Again, participants’ ratings of these
items were significantly different than the rank of 2 assigned by QM, with some items rated
44!