1. Research That Informs the 2011 – 2013 Edition of the QM RubricTM

2. Quality Matters Research Colleagues
Bethany Simunich, Ph.D. , Kent State University
Joan Milkalson, Ph.D., Excelsior College
Julie Frese, Ph.D., University of the Rockies
Li Wang, Ph.D., Ashford University
Sharon Lalla, Ed.D., New Mexico State University
Kay Shattuck, D.Ed., Quality Matters

3. Planned Take-Aways for this Session
Explanation of relationship between research and the QM RubricTM
A sampling of citations from the QM Research Library
Talking points for each of the 8 QM Higher Education general standards

4. QM and Research The QM RubricTM Community of Practice (CoP)
Rubric Review Committee
(QM Academic Committee)
Independent educational research + QM-funded research
Community of Practice (CoP)
(“what’s happening in the ‘field’”)
Best Practices
QM RubricTM = DE Research + Best Practices + CoP
Research lit reviewed to inform Rubric Review Committee
QM-focused research promoted, tracked, funded
QM RubricTM = DE Research + Best Practices + CoP (community of practice:
2005, 2008, 2010, 2013 (k-12 + HE)
Dissertations, scholarly journals, academic databases
2005, QM research grants
Original QM Rubric & peer-review process informed by Maryland Online’s Community of Practice comprised of distance educators with more than 130 combined years of experience. (See
The QM RubricTM

5. QM Research Library https://www.qualitymatters.org/research
Research is housed on the QM website at
This site includes links to an accessibility template that was developed with the support of a QM research grant; information on QM research grants; research resources – where the QM research library is located, as well as a number of QM-related articles and resources on online learning; and, finally, information on the Research Colleagues, who you are talking with today!
The direct link for the QM research library is
Typing in the number of a general QM standard at the research library and clicking “search” will bring up a list of the research literature references applicable to that standard through the year 2007
There are several other links at that bring you to research literature references beginning in the year 2008
Currently, we are incorporating the links and the research literature references this year’s Research Colleagues have identified for 2011 to the present into the QM research library, so that there will be one place to go to retrieve all the information to date that relates to a general standard
In addition, under the Research Resources link will soon be a web form that people can complete as they find research literature related to the QM general standards. QM will review the references submitted via this web form and add them to the searchable research library, as appropriate

6. What’s in the QM Research Library?
As of today, we have documented 503 citations and sources (library currently being updated as we continue our review)
Not every reference for each standard is recorded in library
Our review of the literature includes is rather extensive (following specific journals & dissertations). We do not, however, record every reference for every standard. Since 2008 we have selectively included citations in the QM Research Library by identifying deeper or new information/perspectives on the standards.
Note the great number of research references for Standards 5 and 8 that have come out in the most recent lit review. There is certainly continued interest and information about student engagement and interaction; and the interest and information on accessibility is on the rise.

7. What’s in the QM Research Library?
Standard references
Standard references
Standard references
Standard references
Standard references (91 of which came from this most recent lit review)
Standard references
Standard references
Standard references (26 of which came from this most recent lit review)
Our review of the literature includes is rather extensive (following specific journals & dissertations). We do not, however, record every reference for every standard. Since 2008 we have selectively included citations in the QM Research Library by identifying deeper or new information/perspectives on the standards.
Note the great number of research references for Standards 5 and 8 that have come out in the most recent lit review. There is certainly continued interest and information about student engagement and interaction; and the interest and information on accessibility is on the rise.

8. Talking Points: Standard 1 (Course Overview & Intro)
Research supports the importance of early engagement in online courses.
How to get started and where to find course components is critical to student success.
Students want to know the purpose of the course and what’s expected from them.
Introductions from both the instructor and students establish social presence and build a sense of community to foster learning.
Examples from QM Research Library (
The overall design of the course is made clear to the student at the beginning of the course. Research supports this as important to begin the engagement process for the learner by initial activities that will promote social presence. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, ,
Findings: After QM Rubric Implementation is taught by same instructor, course design and organization: Increased Teacher and Teaching Presences by reducing Direct Management on DB/ “personalizes” Management; Reduces Student “self-management” (i.e., “Group Concerns”) on DB, thus, indirectly reducing “Student Social Presence”; had a positive effect on Student Higher-Order Cognitive Presence via higher Teaching Presence (engagement); positively impacted course satisfaction; and higher-order cognitive presence positively affect discussion forum grades Hall, A. (2010). Quality Matters Rubric as ‘Teaching Presence’: Application of Community of Inquiry Framework to analysis of the QM Rubric’s effects of student learning. [A 2010 QM research grant – Delgado Community College, New Orleans, LA]
Found that "The indicators that were most important to students dealt with making course requirements clear and being responsive to students' needs. Students also valued the timeliness of information and instructor feedback” Sheridan, K. & Kelly, M.A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4). Available
Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta (2002) noted that students in hybrid courses need clear explanation and rationale about the format and relationship between the online and face-to-face components since the concept is new to them. Online and face-to-face dimensions of the course must be well integrated or there is a danger in running “two separate [disconnected] courses” (¶16).

9. Standard 1: Examples from QM research library
The overall design of the course is made clear to the student at the beginning of the course. This is important to begin the engagement process for the learner by initial activities that will promote social presence.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 1-17.
Students can be easily confused regarding their obligations in the absence of clear direction. Group goals especially require clear and achievable objectives. (Studies often inform several standards)
Murphy, K., Mahoney, S. & Harvell, T. (2000). Role of Contracts in Enhancing Community Building in Web Courses. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3) [Electronic version]. Retrieved December 20, 2002, from
Examples from QM Research Library (
The overall design of the course is made clear to the student at the beginning of the course. Research supports this as important to begin the engagement process for the learner by initial activities that will promote social presence. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, ,
Findings: After QM Rubric Implementation is taught by same instructor, course design and organization: Increased Teacher and Teaching Presences by reducing Direct Management on DB/ “personalizes” Management; Reduces Student “self-management” (i.e., “Group Concerns”) on DB, thus, indirectly reducing “Student Social Presence”; had a positive effect on Student Higher-Order Cognitive Presence via higher Teaching Presence (engagement); positively impacted course satisfaction; and higher-order cognitive presence positively affect discussion forum grades Hall, A. (2010). Quality Matters Rubric as ‘Teaching Presence’: Application of Community of Inquiry Framework to analysis of the QM Rubric’s effects of student learning. [A 2010 QM research grant – Delgado Community College, New Orleans, LA]
Found that "The indicators that were most important to students dealt with making course requirements clear and being responsive to students' needs. Students also valued the timeliness of information and instructor feedback” Sheridan, K. & Kelly, M.A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4). Available
Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta (2002) noted that students in hybrid courses need clear explanation and rationale about the format and relationship between the online and face-to-face components since the concept is new to them. Online and face-to-face dimensions of the course must be well integrated or there is a danger in running “two separate [disconnected] courses” (¶16).

10. Talking Point: Standard 2 (Objectives/Competencies)
When designing/re-designing a course for the online environment, studies show that focusing the design around stated learning objectives results in better learning.
Learning objectives can serve as goals, but students need information that illustrates how content and assessments support the achievement of those goals.
Courses/learning approach needs to be re-thought when re-designing (as an online or hybrid course)
Learning objectives are not a destination, but a journey
Poor design impedes achieving learning outcomes
Scaffolding, formative assessment, and goal-setting can enhance achievement of objectives
Examples from QM Research Library (
The findings suggest that revising a course around stated objectives resulted in better student outcomes related to them, especially concerning the ability to write a research proposal. The authors believe that student performance may have improved because the QM revision led instructors to focus on objectives and the mapping of objectives to outcomes, and that such focus translated into their activity in the course. This possibility will be explored further through qualitative means. Finally, it should be pointed out that findings concerning course outcomes support the notion that the QM and CoI frameworks are orthogonal in nature. Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2010). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. [2010 QM Research Grant University of Illinois Springfield]
Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta (2002) found that online learning modules are central to a hybrid course’s success, and the students’ work online must be relevant to the in-class activities.
Mortera-Gutiérrez (2006) found that specific learning activities in blended learning courses must be connected to specific course content and that the objectives/outcomes must be well organized and “on time through the whole semester” (p. 334).

11. Standard 2: Examples from QM research library
Findings suggest that revising a course around stated objectives resulted in better student outcomes related to them.
Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2010). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. [2010 QM Research Grant University of Illinois Springfield]
Specific learning activities in blended learning courses must be connected to specific course content, and the objectives/outcomes must be well organized and “on time through the whole semester” (p. 334).
Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(3),
Courses/learning approach needs to be re-thought when re-designing (as an online or hybrid course)
Learning objectives are not a destination, but a journey
Poor design impedes achieving learning outcomes
Scaffolding, formative assessment, and goal-setting can enhance achievement of objectives

12. Talking Points: Standard 3 (Assessment & Measurement)
Assessment items should direct learners to those aspects of a course that are of primary importance.
Having a wide variety of clearly explained assignments on a regular basis is deemed an effective online assessment strategy.
Effective assessment techniques include projects, portfolios, self-assessments, peer evaluations, and weekly assignments with immediate feedback.
Formative feedback should be aligned with SLOs and be timely, personal, manageable, motivational, and in direct relation with assessment criteria.
Peer Assessment improves writing skill and promotes active participation, increases positive attitude and change.
Assessment types:
Peer Review/Assessment
Text vs. Audio
Assessment focus and alignment
Examples from QM Research Library (
Article includes good overview of automated feedback forms. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2),
Study supports importance of "informative feedback.” Article describes the importance of a feedback tool that, once created as a template, can be used to provide personalized feedback to individual students. Reason for need for use of a tool is recognition in the research that formative feedback to students "can be effective in promoting learning if it is timely, personal, manageable, motivational, and in direct relation with assessment criteria" (p. 111). Hatziapostolou, T., & Parakakis, I. (2010). Enhancing the impact of formative feedback on student learning through an online feedback system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8 (2), , available online at
Study found that students who scored on bottom third of exam did not use the study question materials at the same rate used by students who scored higher. Grabe, M. & Flannery, K. ( ). A preliminary exploration of on-line study question performance and response certitude as predictors of future examination performance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(4),
Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007) looked at the impact of replacing text-based instructor feedback with audio-based instructor feedback. They found that audio feedback:
“was perceived to be more effective than text-based feedback for conveying nuance;
was associated with feelings of increased involvement and enhanced learning community interactions;
was associated with increased retention of content” (p.3). They found a significant relationship between application of content as a result of audio feedback (3 times more likely than when text only feedback).

13. Standard 3: Examples from QM research library
Key issues for assessment of activity-based learning: assessment must reflect course philosophy; assessment is essential in creating learning opportunities at critical points; and assessment provides a vital opportunity for feedback, helping to complete the reflective learning cycle.
Macdonald, J. & Twining, P. (2002). Assessing activity-based learning for a networked course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5),
Students do better in the final assessment tests if in-course practice exercises are aligned with content and style; intensity and frequency of a student’s participation in group discussions also seems to have a positive influence on final performance.
Lewis, B. A. (2002). Learning effectiveness: Efficacy of quizzes vs. discussions in online learning. Dissertation International Abstracts, 63(03), 911A.
Examples from QM Research Library (
Article includes good overview of automated feedback forms. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2),
Study supports importance of "informative feedback.” Article describes the importance of a feedback tool that, once created as a template, can be used to provide personalized feedback to individual students. Reason for need for use of a tool is recognition in the research that formative feedback to students "can be effective in promoting learning if it is timely, personal, manageable, motivational, and in direct relation with assessment criteria" (p. 111). Hatziapostolou, T., & Parakakis, I. (2010). Enhancing the impact of formative feedback on student learning through an online feedback system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8 (2), , available online at
Study found that students who scored on bottom third of exam did not use the study question materials at the same rate used by students who scored higher. Grabe, M. & Flannery, K. ( ). A preliminary exploration of on-line study question performance and response certitude as predictors of future examination performance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(4),
Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007) looked at the impact of replacing text-based instructor feedback with audio-based instructor feedback. They found that audio feedback:
“was perceived to be more effective than text-based feedback for conveying nuance;
was associated with feelings of increased involvement and enhanced learning community interactions;
was associated with increased retention of content” (p.3). They found a significant relationship between application of content as result of audio feedback (3 times more likely than when text only feedback).
Macdonald & Twining (2002) looked at the relationship between assessment, student participation, and the development of skills. They concluded with key issues for assessment of activity-based learning: assessment must reflect course philosophy, assessment is essential in creating learning opportunities at critical points, assessment provides a vital opportunity for feedback, helping to complete the reflective learning cycle.
Lewis (2002) looked at the efficacy of quizzes vs. discussions in online learning in regard to the impact on learning. She concluded that students do better in the final assessment tests if in-course practice exercises are aligned with content and style and that intensity and frequency of a student’s participation in group discussions also seems to have a positive influence on final performance.

14. Talking Points: Standard 4 (Instructional Materials)
Students in a fully interactive multimedia-based e-learning environment achieved better performance and higher levels of satisfaction than those in a traditional classroom and those in a less interactive e-learning environment.
Faculty need to select manageable content and clearly explain the purpose of the activities.
Students can become overwhelmed (cognitive overload).
Students can achieve the intended learning outcomes when they have appropriate supports, structure, and focus.
e-textbooks/eContent
Cognitive Load (e.g., length of video, content)
Examples from QM Research Library (
Pomales-García, C. & Lui, Y. (2006) looked at the impact of web module length on recall and other variables and found that participants simply did not complete long modules.

15. Standard 4: Example from QM research library
Web module length impacts recall and other variables. Study participants simply did not complete long modules.
Pomales-García, C. & Lui, Y. (2006). Web-based distance learning technology: The impacts of web module length and format. The American Journal of Distance Learning, 20(3),
Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007) looked at the impact of replacing text-based instructor feedback with audio-based instructor feedback. They found that audio feedback:
“was perceived to be more effective than text-based feedback for conveying nuance;
was associated with feelings of increased involvement and enhanced learning community interactions;
was associated with increased retention of content” (p.3). They found a significant relationship between application of content as result of audio feedback (3 times more likely than when text only feedback).

16. Talking Points: Standard 5 (Interaction & Engagement)
Course design and organization are factors of teaching presence (along with instructor facilitation).
There is a need to move away from efficiency-oriented design to innovation-oriented design.
Community of Inquiry framework ( ( Teaching presence
Interaction and communication between online learners
Online collaboration
Community
Social and cognitive presence
Examples from QM Research Library (
This study used mixed methods to explore interaction in a self-paced online environment and found that informal interaction can be as important as formal. It also explores the use of holistic interactive forms compared to other types of interaction and provides an Interaction Matrix. Rhode, J. (2008). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. (Capella University).   ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Document ID
This study examined how the messages affected undergraduate student perceived social support, academic satisfaction, academic outcomes and coping modes. Heiman, T. (2008). The effects of -messages in a distance learning university on perceived academic and social support, academic satisfaction, and coping. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3),  ,347.
The study examined student sense of community (SOC) and considered student-student and student-teacher interactions. The author found that SOC was related to the students' sense of satisfaction with the course but that it did not correlate with course grades or retention. It also showed that students had varying levels of desire for SOC. Drouin, M. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community and satisfaction, achievement, and retention in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3),   
In reviewing the literature on motivation to learn, the author lists five principles: Motivation to learn is promoted when a learner's curiosity is aroused due to a perceived gap in current knowledge; when the knowledge to be learned is perceived to be meaningfully related to a learner's goals; when learners believe they can succeed in mastering the learning task; when learners anticipate and experience satisfying outcomes to a learning task; and when learners employ volitional (self-regulatory) strategies to protect their intentions" ( ). Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education 29(2), DOI: /
This study looked at the impact of social interaction in online learning communities on retention rates. Using analysis of 28,000 records and survey data, it was concluded there is a significant impact of social and cognitive presence on retention. “… students who positively perceive online learning environments, which is potentially increased by their perception that they are part of a larger (social) learning community, are more likely to have increased retention.” Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3),
McClure (2006) studied graduate students’ perceptions of learning in a hybrid course and found that the online portions must have “meaningful activities” (¶1).
Dennen & Wieland (2007) pointed out that since “the mere act of posting messages does not inherently result in learning” (p. 282) instructors should design in “anchored” discussion questions to encourage deeper levels of interaction.
Brooks & Jeong (2006) found that in a graduate environment “prestructured discussion threads can increase the frequency of argument-challenge exchanges needed to initiate critical discourse” (p. 371).

17. Standard 5: Examples from QM Research Library
Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience.
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M.G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Students’ sense of community (SOC) was related to the students’ sense of satisfaction with the course, but it did not correlate with course grade or retention. Students had varying levels of desire for SOC.
Drouin, M. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community and satisfaction, achievement, and retention in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3),   
Examples from QM Research Library (
This study uses mixed methods to explore interaction in a self-paced online environment and found that informal interaction can be as important as formal. It also explores the use of holistic interactive forms compared to other types of interaction and provides an Interaction Matrix. Rhode, J. (2008). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. (Capella University).   ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Document ID
This study examined how the messages affected undergraduate student perceived social support, academic satisfaction, academic outcomes and coping modes. Heiman, T. (2008). The effects of -messages in a distance learning university on perceived academic and social support, academic satisfaction, and coping. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3),  ,347.
The study examined student sense of community (SOC) and considered student-student and student-teacher interactions. The author found that SOC was related to the students' sense of satisfaction with the course but that it did not correlate with course grade or retention. It also showed that students had varying levels of desire for SOC. Drouin, M. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community and satisfaction, achievement, and retention in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3),   
In reviewing the literature on motivation to learn, the author lists five principles: Motivation to learn is promoted when a learner's curiosity is aroused due to a perceived gap in current knowledge; when the knowledge to be learned is perceived to be meaningfully related to a learner's goals; when learners believe they can succeed in mastering the learning task; when learners anticipate and experience satisfying outcomes to a learning task; and when learners employ volitional (self-regulatory) strategies to protect their intentions" ( ). Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education 29(2), DOI: /
This study looked at the impact of social interaction in online learning communities on retention rates. Using analysis of 28,000 records and survey data, it was concluded there is a significant impact of social and cognitive presence on retention. “… students who positively perceive online learning environments, which is potentially increased by their perception that they are part of a larger (social) learning community, are more likely to have increased retention.” Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3),
McClure (2006) studied graduate students’ perceptions of learning in a hybrid course and found that the online portions must have “meaningful activities” (¶1).
Dennen & Wieland (2007) pointed out that since that “the mere act of posting messages does not inherently result in learning” (p. 282) instructors should design in “anchored” discussion questions to encourage deeper levels of interaction.
Brooks & Jeong (2006) found that in a graduate environment “prestructured discussion threads can increase the frequency of argument-challenge exchanges needed to initiate critical discourse” (p. 371).
Moore (1989) identified three types of interaction – student/teacher; student/student; and student/content. Anderson (2002, 2003) suggested an expansion of interaction possibilities to include teacher/teacher; teacher/content; content/content. Others, coming from an instructional technology perspective, suggested learner/interface interaction (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena; 1994) and learner/the virtual world interaction should be considered (Chase, Macfadyen, Reeder, & Roche; 2002).
Gundawardena & Zittle (1997) identified social presence [“The degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” (p.9)] and reported correlation between perceptions of interaction and quality/quantity of learning.
Sims (1999) listed functions of interactions: allowing learners control, facilitating program adaptation based on learner input, allowing various forms of participation and communication, and aiding the development of meaningful learning
McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas (1999) found that teachers in online courses appeared to be more concerned about encouraging student participation than in traditional, classroom based courses. Instructors perceived more effectiveness of their personal interactions to individual student messages in enhancing learning.
Roblyer & Ekhaml (2000); Roblyer & Wiencke (2003) present a rubric to determine the interaction levels in an online course. The model is based in learning theories, instructional theories, instructional design models, and instructional delivery systems. Berge (1999), Liaw & Huang (2000), Weller (1988) pointed out the necessity of closing the communication loop.
Murphy, Machoney, & Harvell (2000) investigated the use of contract in promoting learner-centered project-based learning in a web course. They concluded with a suggested list of instructor responsibilities to facilitate this form of active learning.
Muirhead (2000) provided six types of interactive activities that might encourage learner-learner interaction: sharing of relevant personal experiences, reference to appropriate materials (besides assigned readings), comments on the opinions of others, introduction of new issues for discussion, questions posed to the group by students, instructor acting as guide and facilitator.
Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem (2002) investigated the effects of different types of interaction (academic, collaborative, and social) on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Results indicated that the social interaction group outperformed the other groups; the collaborative interaction group expressed the highest level of satisfaction with their learning experiences; the collaborative and social interaction groups participated more actively in posting their opinions that the academic interaction group.
Tu & McIsaac (2002) revealed that social presence is complicated by the social context of the learners and learning environment, by the nature of online communication [including keyboarding and language skills], and interactivity [for example, response time to messages, communication styles, group size].

18. Standard 5: Another example from QM Research Library
Impact of social interaction in online learning communities on retention rates. Concluded (n=28,000) there is a significant impact of social and cognitive presence on retention. “… students who positively perceive online learning environments, which is potentially increased by their perception that they are part of a larger (social) learning community, are more likely to have increased retention.”
Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3),
Motivation to learning:
Learner's curiosity is aroused due to a perceived gap in current knowledge
Knowledge to be learned is perceived to be meaningfully related to a learner's goals
Learners believe they can succeed in mastering the learning task
Learners anticipate and experience satisfying outcomes to a learning task
Learners employ volitional (self-regulatory) strategies to protect their intentions ( ).
Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education 29(2), DOI: /

19. Talking Point: Standard 6 (Course Technology)
Incorporating current learning technologies can support both interaction and collaboration.
Utilizing various course tools and media respects the diversity of learners/learning styles in online courses.
Pedagogy should drive the choice of what technologies to employ.
Utilizing current tools and media can increase presence, interaction, and collaboration among students, as well as invite them to become active learners.
Course outcomes should guide faculty in choosing appropriate technology, though it’s wise to vary the tools and media used to reflect student and learning diversity.
Examples from QM Research Library (
Authors found that confusion by too many technology options in a virtual classroom and technical issues were frustrating to students in blended learning courses and often had negative impact on their involvement. McBrien, J. L. & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3) , 1-17
The author, as a well-known expert in online/blended learning provides an excellent informational piece of blending with purpose. He presents a "Blending with Purpose" model with the underlying assumption that instructors must carefully consider their objectives and understand how to apply the technologies and approaches that will work best for them" (14). The model includes information on content; social/emotional; dialectic/questioning; synthesis/evaluation; collaboration/student generated content; and reflection
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: the multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7-18.
This dissertation used a quantitative and quasi-experimental design approach and found that there was no significant difference in learning results between a text-based and multimedia design in an online course. Fox, K. (2010). Investigating the impact of multimedia design principles on learning in an online context.  (Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Document ID
This journal article explores the use of Facebook as a way to meet course objectives in the learning of English. 300 undergrad students were surveyed and results showed that overall students believed that Facebook would be useful in learning English. The author suggests that pre-determined learning objectives and outcomes need to be considered if integrating Facebook. Kabilan, M., Ahmad, N., Abidin, M. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13 (4),
This study explored the intended and unintended uses of Web 2.0 technology (Ning) in a blended course. The use of blogs and discussion forums was useful for reflection on self and others and an unintended result was community building and vicarious interaction (lurking). Arnold, N., Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building, 13 (4),
Chang (2006) found in her dissertation study of undergraduate and graduate students that was the favorite interactive tool and should be considered as part of the overall design of an online course.
Mein (2005) looked at redundancy and cueing (text, audio, and visual) in relationship to learning from text and diagrams. No significant difference in student preference was noted, but there was some indication of the effectiveness of audio cueing since there were some high scores on performance tests on those materials with audio text cues.
Green & McNeese (2007) reviewed the literature on educational use of digital games and described the characteristics of high quality digital games from work done by Baranich & Currie (2004), Klaila (2001), and Gee (2003). Educational digital games should include:
Elements of suspense, competition, drama, and/or cooperation and the use or acquisition of knowledge in a defined subject area and use intellectual skills that apply to specific course content;
Clear learning goals and objectives;
Clear rules so students know how to play;
Interactive feedback;
Should be:
Interactive and nonlinear;
Focused on learning rather than on winning or losing. [Students should never be penalized to the point of being excluded from the game, and “winners” should be teams, not individuals];
Encouraging of exploration through rewards. [Players choose to assume the “protagonist” character or the “antagonist” character to experience both perspectives.];
Challenging with obstacles woven into a strong learning-related adventure develop higher order thinking skills
Encouraging of creativity more than one correct answer or way of doing something. (p. 11)
Green & McNeese summarized that digital games “promote student learning through exploration, interactivity, trial and error, and repetition in such a way that students got so lost in the fun, that they don’t realize they are learning at the same time” (pp. 5-6).

20. Standard 6: Examples from QM Research Library
“ more is not necessarily better” and warned of potential dangers resulting from imposed interaction as it might interfere with student autonomy in managing time, place, and pace of learning.
Kramarae (2003), Cook (1989), & May (1993)
Confusion by too many technology options in a virtual classroom along with technical issues was frustrating to students in blended learning courses and often had negative impact on students’ involvement.
McBrien, J. L. & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3) , 1-17.
Characteristics of high quality digital games: “promote student learning through exploration, interactivity, trial and error, and repetition in such a way that students got so lost in the fun, that they don’t realize they are learning at the same time” (pp. 5-6).
Green, M. & NcNeese, M. N. (2007). Using edutainment software to enhance online learning. International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 5-16.
Examples from QM Research Library (
Authors found that confusion by too many technology options in a virtual classroom and technical issues were frustrating to students in blended learning courses and often had negative impact on their involvement. McBrien, J. L. & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3) , 1-17
The author, as a well-known expert in online/blended learning provides an excellent informational piece of blending with purpose. He presents a "Blending with Purpose" model with the underlying assumption that instructors must carefully consider their objectives and understand how to apply the technologies and approaches that will work best for them" (14). The model includes information on content; social/emotional; dialectic/questioning; synthesis/evaluation; collaboration/student generated content; and reflection
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: the multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7-18.
This dissertation used a quantitative and quasi-experimental design approach and found that there was no significant difference in learning results between a text-based and multimedia design in an online course. Fox, K. (2010). Investigating the impact of multimedia design principles on learning in an online context.  (Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Document ID
This journal article explores the use of Facebook as a way to meet course objectives in the learning of English. 300 undergrad students were surveyed and results showed that overall students believed that Facebook would be useful in learning English. The author suggests that pre-determined learning objectives and outcomes need to be considered if integrating Facebook. Kabilan, M., Ahmad, N., Abidin, M. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13 (4),
This study explored the intended and unintended uses of Web 2.0 technology (Ning) in a blended course. The use of blogs and discussion forums was useful for reflection on self and others and an unintended result was community building and vicarious interaction (lurking). Arnold, N., Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building, 13 (4),
Chang (2006) found in her dissertation study of undergraduate and graduate students that was the favorite interactive tool and should be considered as part of the overall design of an online course.
Mein (2005) looked at redundancy and cueing (text, audio, and visual) in relationship to learning from text and diagrams. No significant difference in student preference was noted, but there was some indication of the effectiveness of audio cueing since there were some high scores on performance tests on those materials with audio text cues.
Green & McNeese (2007) reviewed the literature on educational use of digital games and described the characteristics of high quality digital games from work done by Baranich & Currie (2004), Klaila (2001), and Gee (2003). Educational digital games should include:
Elements of suspense, competition, drama, and/or cooperation and the use or acquisition of knowledge in a defined subject area and use intellectual skills that apply to specific course content;
Clear learning goals and objectives;
Clear rules so students know how to play;
Interactive feedback;
Should be:
Interactive and nonlinear;
Focused on learning rather than on winning or losing. [Students should never be penalized to the point of being excluded from the game, and “winners” should be teams, not individuals];
Encouraging of exploration through rewards. [Players choose to assume the “protagonist” character or the “antagonist” character to experience both perspectives.];
Challenging with obstacles woven into a strong learning-related adventure develop higher order thinking skills
Encouraging of creativity more than one correct answer or way of doing something. (p. 11)
Green & McNeese summarized that digital games “promote student learning through exploration, interactivity, trial and error, and repetition in such a way that students got so lost in the fun, that they don’t realize they are learning at the same time” (pp. 5-6).

21. Standard 7: Talking Points
Standard 7 is about evidence of “access” and not about evaluating the actual support services.
Learner support services help students to persist and successfully complete courses.
Students need information about support services and how to access them from within the course or learning management system.
Institutions must find meaningful ways to connect students to learner support services.
Four categories of support services: technical, accessibility, academic services, and student services.
Academic support services differ from institution to institution.

22. Standard 7: Examples from QM Research Library
Understanding "instructions given by the system, which usually is not adequately adapted to user's prior knowledge or the vocabulary of a lay person" is a serious drawback (p. 3)
Heckner, M., Schworm, S., & Wolff, C. (2009). Combining design patterns and elements of social computing for the design of user-centered online help systems. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 38(1), 3-20.
Perceptions of psychological presence a student working at a distance holds in relation with teachers, peer students, and institution can be significant predictors of learning outcomes. An institution’s transactional presence may be relatively more important than teachers’ and peer students’ transactional presence
Shin, N. (2001). Beyond interaction: transactional presence and distance learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Examples from QM Research Library (
Authors suggest that students' reluctance to use help systems have psychological and implementation dimensions. Understanding "instructions given by the system, which usually is not adequately adapted to user's prior knowledge or the vocabulary of a lay person" is a serious drawback (p. 3) Heckner, M., Schworm, S., & Wolff, C. (2009). Combining design patterns and elements of social computing for the design of user-centered online help systems. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 38(1), 3-20.
Shin (2001) found independent from interaction activities, the perceptions of psychological presence a distance student holds in relation with teachers, peer students, and institution can be significant predictors of learning outcomes. An institution’s transactional presence may be relatively more important than teachers’ and peer students’ transactional presence (the degree to which a distance student perceives the availability of, and connectedness with, other parties involved in a given distance education setting” (2002, p.121). Shin, N. (2001). Beyond interaction: transactional presence and distance learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

23. Talking Points: Standard 8 (Accessibility)
Driven by ADA Policy
Influenced by Universal Design
Envisioned to “Design Online Courses to Meet All Learner Needs”
Confronted with the Complexity of Learner Needs
Provide Choices
Learn About Your Learners
This standard was included in the very first edition (2005) of the QM Rubric and pointed to the need for designers and faculty to be aware of ADA. This is the only standard that originally came from the Community of Practice (those distance educators who actually established the 2005 QM standards). This standard had limited “research support” for the need, but more “legal” and “best practices” support.
Examples from QM Research Library (
Online classes need to be designed with all forms of disabilities in mind, not just the blind and the deaf. Success for disabled students is dependent on their individual learning needs being met. Universal design makes online instructional material accessible and understandable for all kinds of students with disabilities. Sapp, W. (2009). Universal Design: Online Educational Media for Students with Disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness.
Article focuses on attitudes of students with disabilities in requesting conformance or assistance with distance education courses and results "do indicate that students who report having visible disabilities appear to have more positive attitudes toward requesting accommodations in the online versus face-to-face learning environment compared with students who report having hidden disabilities." The article provides a general discussion of accessibility issues contained in the Accessibility section of the QM rubric and also addresses building disability standards into a course in the initial design versus retrofitting to fit the needs of a diverse and growing population of distance education students. Barnard-Brak, L., & Sulak, T. (2010). Online versus face-to-face accommodations among college students with disabilities. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 81.
Elias T (2013). Universal Instructional Design Principles for Moodle, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Used UID (universal instructional design) principles to guide review: equitable use, blexible use, simple an intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical and technical effort, community of learners and support, instructional climate. Course assessed for UID principles
Hashemy Syeda T. (2011). Usabiity and accessibility of social media among Canadians with high functioning AUTISM. We learn they enjoy social media
Essmaker, G. M. (2012) How designers by assignment in community colleges apply universal design principles to online course designs to accommodate AGING LEARNERS. They also find that faculty have no familiarization with UD.
Fichten, C. S., et. Al., (2012). Information and communication technology related needs of college and university STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES by research in learning technology. 13 TYPES OF DISABILITIES from which to choose. 29% self identified with a learning disability. ICT needs are not met for multiple disabilities. Needs of students who have mobility impairments, hard of hearding, and totally blind were best met. Cognitive disabilities were not met.

24. Standard 8: Example from QM Research Library
Online classes need to be designed with all forms of disabilities in mind, not just the blind and the deaf. Success for disabled students is dependent on their individual learning needs being met. Universal design makes online instructional material accessible and understandable for all kinds of students with disabilities.
Sapp, W. (2009). Universal Design: Online Educational Media for Students with Disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness.
This standard was included in the very first edition (2005) of the QM Rubric and pointed to the need for designers and faculty to be aware of ADA. This is the only standard that originally came from the Community of Practice (those distance educators who actually established the 2005 QM standards). This standard had limited “research support” for the need, but more “legal” and “best practices” support.
Examples from QM Research Library (
Online classes need to be designed with all forms of disabilities in mind, not just the blind and the deaf. Success for disabled students is dependent on their individual learning needs being met. Universal design makes online instructional material accessible and understandable for all kinds of students with disabilities. Sapp, W. (2009). Universal Design: Online Educational Media for Students with Disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness.
Article focuses on attitudes of students with disabilities in requesting conformance or assistance with distance education courses and results "do indicate that students who report having visible disabilities appear to have more positive attitudes toward requesting accommodations in the online versus face-to-face learning environment compared with students who report having hidden disabilities." The article provides a general discussion of accessibility issues contained in the Accessibility section of the QM Rubric and also addresses building disability standards into a course in the initial design versus retrofitting to fit the needs of a diverse and growing population of distance education students. Barnard-Brak, L., & Sulak, T. (2010). Online versus face-to-face accommodations among college students with disabilities. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 81.
Elias T (2013). Universal Instructional Design Principles for Moodle, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Used UID (universal instructional design) principles to guide review: equitable use, flexible use, simple and intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical and technical effort, community of learners and support, instructional climate. Course assessed for UID principles
Hashemy Syeda T. (2011). Useabiity and accessibility of social media among Canadians with high functioning AUTISM. We learn they enjoy social media.
Essmaker, G. M. (2012). How designers by assignment in community colleges apply universal design principles to online course designs to accommodate AGING LEARNERS. They also find that faculty have no familiarization with UD.
Fichten, C. S., et. Al., (2012). Information and communication technology related needs of college and university STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES by research in learning technology. 13 TYPES OF DISABILITIES from which to choose. 29% self identified with a learning disability. ICT needs are not met for multiple disabilities. Needs of students who have mobility impairments, hard of hearing, and totally blind were best met. Cognitive disabilities were not met.

25. Questions?

26. ~Sharon, Li, Julie, Joan, Bethany, & Kay