Internet Learning Volume 5, Number 1, Fall 2016/Winter 2017 | Page 14

Online Graduate Course Evaluation from Both Students’ and
Peer Instructors’ Perspectives Utilizing Quality Matters TM
dations due to a disability by providing
a link to Adaptive Technology and Accessibility
Center. It suggests that students
did not see the information that
was linked within the syllabus.
QM standard 4.2 revealed that
students needed to know the purpose
of instructional materials and methods,
and how those would help students
achieve the learning objectives. Results
indicate that the course learning activities
were aligned with the course objectives
and the instructional materials
contributed to the achievement of the
objectives (see categories 3 and 4 in Table
3). However, students seemed not to
be well informed about the purpose of
instructional materials and how those
were related to the learning objectives.
QM standard 1.1 related to the
first activities in the courses. A common
suggestion regarding the first activities
is for instructors to provide a “Read Me
First” or “Start Here” button on the menu
or home page, which provides start-up
information or activities. Although the
courses provided general course overviews
in the syllabus and a schedule for
learning activities through the learning
management system assignments page,
the courses generally did not indicate
what to do first or provide information
about course navigation.
Discussion
The findings of the study revealed
the following: (1) the adult online
graduate courses generally
fulfilled the key components of QM
13
standards; (2) students’ evaluations of
the courses were quite consistent with
the peer instructors’ evaluations. (3) As
areas for improvement, students and
peer reviewers identified the need for
clearer links to information about accessibility,
technical support, instructional
materials, and course orientation.
The researchers observed that
students’ evaluations of courses were
consistent with the instructors’ evaluations
in that the former reflected students’
learning experiences while the
latter were affected by the course design
as the QM standard specified. Although
the two cohorts used the same evaluation
rubric, their evaluation processes
might have been different. For example,
the instructors checked course syllabi,
learning materials, announcements,
and instructions while rating each individual
question. Students, however,
relied on their learning experiences
during the semester; they did not seem
to check each element as the instructors
did. So, it is quite plausible that students’
evaluation approach was quite different
from the instructors’ approach. Yet, the
results in this study confirmed that the
students’ “perceived” evaluations were
quite consistent with the instructors’
“objective” ones. The results suggest
that the students experienced learning
in the adult education courses in ways
that the instructors intended.
QM standards emphasize the
key components that should be met
and aligned in the course design. The
results suggest that the adult online
graduate courses satisfied the standards
based on the evaluations of both students
and peer instructors. The instruc-