6.

4 Project: Evaluating Learner Achievement and the Success of Instructional Design

For this project, I chose to review a course that I found on Openlearning.org. The course

is titled: Learning design basics: Pedagogy into practice, and it is an online course and is offered

for free. The course is self-paced and consists of several modules and activities for students to

complete on their own. Students engage in discussion boards and post completed work for

other students to see.

I used the Specific Review Standards from the QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition

to help me complete my review. This course did not include all twenty-three essential

standards from the rubric. The course overview and introduction started off very promising, but

the minimum technology requirements for the course were not clearly stated, and information

on how to obtain the technologies were not provided. I throughout the site and the course, but

I could not find this information. This information could be easily added to the home or

announcement pages of the course. It would benefit the learner a great deal.

The assessment and measurement standards were not all met either. The course

grading policy could not be found. Specific and descriptive criteria are not provided for the

evaluation of learners’ work, and their connection to the course grading policy is not clearly

explained. I looked through the website as well as the course information, but I could not find

this information (maybe because this course is offered for free). It is crucial for the learner to

have this information while completing the modules and activities of this course. I believe this

information would fit very nicely with information pertaining to each step of the course.
 Learning activities and learner interaction did not meet all the essential standards

either. The instructor’s plan for interacting with learners during the course is not clearly stated.

It states the type of interaction that will happen between students, but not between students

and the instructor. The lack of that information could lead to lower student scores for the

course. Without that information, students are not aware of instructor expectations for

interaction. This information could have been placed easily within the course.

Learner support was another standard that did not meet all the criteria needed on the

QM rubric. The course instructions did not articulate or link to a clear description of the

technical support offered and how to obtain it. Course instructions did not articulate or link to

the institution’s accessibility policies and services. Once again, this information was essential to

the learner. It should have been easily accessible and ready for students. I could have been

placed in the announcements section of the course.

The course lost several other points from the rubric for various missing items. I have

included the QM rubric that I used for this review. My suggestion would be for the designers to

take the time to place all the missing information into an appropriate section for students. It

would be possible for designers to create a new section for the missing information as well. I

found this course to be interesting, and I l believe it could be very educational and helpful.

Adding the missing essential standards would benefit the instructor and the learners of this

course, and lead to more student success.