This document summarizes an online course designed to train faculty in building quality online courses. The course was created by an instructional design team at a community college. It includes 6 modules covering topics like online learning fundamentals, design, engagement, assessment, and the human element. The course models best practices through its interactive format and feedback opportunities. A quality assessment process was also developed where faculty submit course reviews and improvement plans. Feedback indicates the course is effective in helping faculty improve and align with standards.

1. BUILDING ONLINE
COURSE QUALITY FROM
THE GROUND UP
Co-Presenters:
Dori Llloyd, dori_lloyd@davidsonccc.edu
David Whitehead, david_whitehead@davidsonccc.edu

2. OUR TEAM

3. Director, Distance Education and Instructional Tech.
• Taught mathematics in all delivery
methods at DCCC for 6 years
• Transitioned into Distance Education
and Instructional Tech.
• Have both Mathematics and
Instructional Technology degrees.
• Have an interest in developing
engaging online courses.

4. Coordinator, Distance Education
• Former corporate trainer; transitioned to
community college in1999
• 11 years as ESL instructor. Developed &
taught distance ed and face-to-face classes
• Coordinated ESL & GED Online programs.
Trained faculty, managed instructional
technology
• “That Moodle Guy”

5. QA PROCESS AND HOW IT BEGAN

6. Putting the Cart Before the Horse
• Created a QA Panel
• Developed a QA Tool
• Expectations were not being met
• Needed Leadership buy-in
• Identified a need for prof. dev.
Flickr image by Emilio Labrador CC BY 2.0

7. Holistic View of Quality Control
Online Certification Course
Quality Assessment
Improvement Plan

8. DEVELOPMENT OF COURSE

9. Development of the Course
• Wanted it to be interactive
• Provide experience as online student
• Model best practices
• Not the same as Moodle how-to training
• Address common weaknesses
• Do course development through the course Flickr image by The Open University CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

10. Online Certification Course Format
Fall and Spring
 9 weeks
 7 modules
 1 week to 2 week modules
Examples
Aug. 31st – Nov. 8th
Jan. 25th – April 3rd
Summer
 5 weeks
 5 modules
 1 week modules
Examples
 May 16th – June 14th
 June 13th – July 24th

11. Course Format
 Module 0: Welcome (1 week)
 Module 1: Orientation to Online Learning (1 week)
 Module 2: Design Basics (2 weeks)
 Module 3: Engaging the Online Learner (2 weeks)
 Module 4: Assessment & Feedback (1 week)
 Module 5: The Human Element (1 week)
 Module 6: Course Foundations (1 week)

12. Course Book
Essentials of Online Course Design
A Standards-Based Guide
By
Marjorie Vai
Kristen Sosulski

13. MODULE ZERO
Welcome to the Online Certification Course

14. Module Zero: Welcome

15. Course Structure

16. MODULE ONE
Orientation to Online Learning

17. Module One: Orientation to Online Learning
 Asynchronous vs. Synchronous
 Role of the Online Instructor
 Know Your Learner
 Digital Natives & Digital Immigrants

18. Digital Native or Immigrant?

19. Digital Natives or Immigrant?

20. Digital Native or Immigrant?

21. Role of the Online Instructor
Rate Yourself Assignment
 Rate yourself in each of these roles.
 Give specific examples to support your
self assessment.
 What do you hope to gain from the
course to strengthen your skills in
these areas?

22. MODULE TWO
Design Basics

23. Module Two: Design Basics

24. Design Critique - Assignment
Provide four sample course pages and ask them to address specific elements.
 Figure 1: Color/contrast
 Figure 2: Organization of Modules
 Figure 3: Homepage as launching pad to content
 Figure 4: Images
A colleague who is revising his course page seeks your advice on making images and
videos accessible. What do you tell him?

25. Layout Assignment
 Instructors are asked to share screenshots of their Moodle course page, including a
list of module objectives.
 Faculty give and receive constructive feedback on their designs.

26. Faculty Discourse
Teacher A
“…I see that you have chunked your information in folders, but it may be
helpful to give an indication of dates or weeks that students can expect to
focus on each chapter…”
Teacher B
“Good comment about adding the chapter title to each folder. I plan to do
that.”

27. Faculty Discourse
“…To me, white space is comforting; it makes it seem as if the content is
manageable…”
“I like the style of your layout... Do you mind if I use some of the ideas for my
future online courses?”

28. Faculty Discourse
Teacher A
“I could not remove any of the white space between the course heading and
the picture. Any suggestions will be appreciated.”
Teacher B
“Check your image settings. In one of the accessibility videos we watched it
showed how to go to image setting to add a description…I don’t know if this
is the problem, but it’s one place to check.”
Teacher A
“Your suggestion worked. I was able to reduce the space between my
picture and the words! You have been most helpful!

29. Quality Assessment Tool
Logical Course Design:
 Module objectives are posted in each module.
 Activities are consistently aligned with module objectives.
Consistency:
 Naming and placement of like items is generally consistent throughout course.
 Consistent use of color formatting differentiates between content.
 If applicable, image size and placement is consistent throughout the course.

30. Quality Assessment Tool
Readability (Fonts, Color):
 Contrast between text color and background is sufficient for readability.
(4.5:1 ratio)
 Text colors and fonts are limited to 3-4 and generally do not impair readability.
 Highlighting is used sparingly to emphasize important items or is not used at all.
Readability (Text, Alignment, Links):
 Text alignment clearly indicates relationships between items.
 White space is used effectively to chunk related items and break up lists and
blocks of text.
 Hyperlink names are meaningful and succinct.

31. MODULE THREE
Engaging the Online Learner

32. Module 3: Engaging the Online Learner
Building
Community
Varying
Voices
Active
Learning

33. Quality Assessment Criteria
Building Community
Students are required to communicate
with each other at least 2 times during
the course.
 Intro Forum
 Peer Review
 Student-to-Student Discussions
 Muddiest Points Forum
Varying Voices
In addition to the course book and
instructor, the course includes 3
additional voices or perspectives.
 Multimedia
 Embed an outside expert’s voice
 Peer interaction/feedback
 Publisher supplements

34. Active Learning

35. MODULE FOUR
Assessment and Feedback

36. Module Four: Assessment and Feedback
 Frequent Feedback
 Timely Feedback
 Variety in Feedback
 Assessment/Feedback Plan

37. Assessment/Feedback Plan

38. MODULE FIVE
The Human Element

39. Module 5: The Human Element

40. Faculty/Staff Videos
Amy Archambault, Library Staff Member

41. Faculty/Staff Videos
Obbe Haverkamp, Adjunct History Instructor

42. MODULE SIX
Course Foundations

43. Quality Assessment
 Discuss Quality Assessment Process
 Faculty submit a self review of online course
 Discuss strengths and weaknesses
 Notified that they will be up for review as early as next semester

44. What They Are Saying . . . The Good
“The most beneficial aspect...was the personalized feedback and the self-reflection
that the forums provided.”
“Really good feedback from the instructor and other students... Crackerjack course
design and layout.”
“...a model and standard I can follow to improve my courses.”
Flickr image by Sarah Reid CC BY 2.0

45. What They Are Saying . . . The Good
“Although it moved quickly, that made me stay focused. I also liked that we could
use our own course.”
“I enjoyed the opportunity to brainstorm with other online instructors.”
“I liked the clear organization, the information covered, and the feeling of
community.”
Flickr image by Sarah Reid CC BY 2.0

46. And Suggestions for Improvement
“Would have liked a list or demonstration of tools that can be used online.”
“Would like to see more help with different forms of technology.”
“Require the use of more Web 2.0 tools.”
“...some of the forum questions were a little confusing. In Best Practices, I wasn’t
exactly sure what I needed to post.”
Flickr image by Tina M. Steele
CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

47. And Suggestions for Improvement
“Would like a version of this course that could be done in a week or so. I like to go
ahead and get things done.”
“The student moodle orientation was lengthy & useless....I already require it.”
“The video for the C.R.A.P exercise moved too quickly.”
Flickr image by Tina M. Steele
CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

48. LOGISTICS OF THE REVIEW
Quality Assessment

49. Quality Assessment Panel
• 6 faculty members
• Representative of different
areas
• Rotate off after a couple of
years
• Members excited to get
new ideas
Image from Pixabay CC0 Public Domain

50. Cycle– About every 2 years
1
• Instructors complete
self-review
2
• QA Panel submits review
3
• David and I schedule
appointments with faculty
4
• Improvement Plan is
created

51. Our Takeaways
 Faculty have been involved in the creation
 More awareness of the expectations
 Build more connections between faculty/staff
 Emphasis is on improvement
 Faculty feel supported
 Course is dynamic