
















































Microsoft Word - 3093-JOTLT FINAL.docx


Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012, pp. 48 – 50.	
  

	
  

Using Quality MattersTM (QM) to Improve All Courses  
 

Diane L. Finley1 
 
Framework 
 
Quality Matters is a program of quality assurance for online and hybrid education. The program 
has received national recognition for its process which includes peer review, faculty-
centeredness and a focus on continuous improvement in online teaching and learning. Quality 
Matters is a subscription program whose current subscribers include community and technical 
colleges and universities in the United States, other countries, K-12, and other academic 
institutions. It is a systematic process for ensuring quality in the design of online and 
blended/hybrid courses and its rubric standards align with accreditation standards. Using Quality 
Matters also has implications for improving student outcomes and retention. I became involved 
with QM at its inception in 2003 since I worked at one of the original institutions involved with 
its development under a Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) grant. I 
eventually became a certified Peer Reviewer, a certified Master Reviewer and now I help to train 
Master Reviewers. While not entirely sold on the process at first, I witnessed the improvements 
in my online courses once I applied the rubric to my courses. Students had fewer procedural 
questions, navigation was smoother, and I was able to focus more on interacting with the 
students. I became a believer in the rubric and the process. 
 
Making It Work 
 
Before discussing how I specifically use QM in my courses, let me give a bit of background on 
QM and some specifics about the process.  QM was a collaboration of 14 community colleges, 5 
four year institutions in Maryland, and nine external partners. The goal of the FIPSE project was 
to develop criteria (in a rubric) for quality assurance of online learning and to create training for 
online faculty. The rubric focused on course design, not delivery, and was not intended to resolve 
all quality issues in online classes. After the grant expired, QM became an independent 
subscriber-based organization under MarylandOnline. Subscribers include educational 
institutions of all levels as well as publishers of online courses. QM also offers online training 
for instructors and has to date, trained over 16,000 faculty and instructional design staff.   The 
QM process which is researched-based involves a faculty-centered, peer-review process of 
online and hybrid (blended) courses. The rubric, now in its third iteration (since becoming a non-
profit organization), focuses on course design and is a diagnostic instrument which faculty can 
use for continuous improvement of their courses. The expectation is that all courses can 
eventually meet QM expectations. Meeting QM expectations involves meeting the 21 essential 
standards l and receiving at least 85% of the possible points from the rubric. If a course does not 
initially meet expectation, the faculty member is encouraged to use the feedback from the review 
to improve the course which is then re-reviewed. The rubric focuses on eight areas: overview, 
objectives, assessment, materials, learner interaction, technology, learner support, and 
accessibility. Why worry about course design? Why use Quality Matters?  Since the Department 
of Education changed the rules for federal financial aid in 2005 with the Higher Education 

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1	
  Professor, Department of Psychology, Prince George's Community College, finleydl@pgcc.edu 	
  



Finley, D.L. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

49 

Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), the number of institutions offering online courses has 
increased dramatically. The Sloan Consortium reported a 10% growth in distance learning 
enrollments in 2011. The Instructional Technology Council which examined elearning at 
community colleges reported an 8.2% increase in online enrollments from Fall 2010 to Fall 
2011. I now use the QM rubric in all my course designs, even for courses that have not been 
officially reviewed. As our institution has increased emphasis on assessment, I find using the 
rubric forces me to see how my course and chapter objectives align with my assessments and 
activities. Everything in the course has a purpose and that purpose is made clear and transparent 
to students. Students who read all of the objectives and explanations understand why they are 
doing particular activities or taking certain quizzes. Applying the rubric has made me really 
examine my choice of activities and assessments. They are much more purposeful now. Even 
weekly discussion boards link to specific objectives. I give students a course map that clearly 
shows this linkage. The research shows that better student outcomes result when a course design 
relates to the course objectives (Swan, Matthews, Bogle, Boles, & Day, 2011). It was a "duh!" 
moment when I looked at these rubric standards and the research. Students are also more 
satisfied when all the course components are clearly integrated (Ke & Xie, 2009).  
 The rubric has also helped me to make my courses more accessible to all students. I used 
to use all sorts of font style and colors, not realizing how difficult those can be for some students. 
Now my courses are more simple in design but they are easier to read. I recently had a visually 
impaired student who was able to use a screen reader in the course with no problems. The third 
area in which I have found the rubric most helpful is the Course Overview and Introduction (QM 
Standard 1). To meet the specific review standards in this area, I created “Start Here” areas for 
students with detailed directions on how to get started. I include information on my expectations 
and institutional policies relevant to online learners. I also include links to institutional tutorials 
on using our LMS.  No longer do I assume students can just find these items. I have streamlined 
my navigation so there are fewer buttons. Students have to click fewer times to find course 
components. It does take a good deal of time before the course begins to create the designs that 
meet QM expectations. However, I found that once I completed one course and it met 
expectations, other courses took less time. There were many items that could be reused with 
slight edits such as the Start Here sections. I also found that by using the rubric for the design, I 
was better able to focus on content. Some faculty raise concerns about QM creating packaged 
courses with no room for individual teaching styles. I have reviewed over 90 courses from all 
types of institutions. I have not found anything that would resemble a "packaged" course. There 
are many design elements that can meet QM expectations. It does not tell any instructor how to 
teach a class. I have reviewed multiple classes on the same topic and have yet to find two that are 
just alike, even at the same institution. As mentioned above, by using the QM rubric to guide 
course design, the faculty member is free to focus on content and devising creative ways of 
presenting that content to students.  
 
Future Implications 
 
As the body of research literature on online courses continues to grow, the QM rubric will 
continue to be revised, to take into account new developments and new information on student 
success. Future iterations of the rubric will enable me to keep my courses up-to-date with the 
literature on student success. My institution requires that all online courses meet QM 
expectations. By using the rubric, the Department is better able to ensure that courses with 



Finley, D.L. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

50 

multiple sections are comparable. Not every instructor uses exactly the same activities but each 
instructor has to show how those activities align with our common course objectives. Students 
are learning the same things; they are just learning them in different ways. Using the rubric, 
especially the standards related to alignment of objectives and assessments/activities, has made it 
easier to extract data for our Department review and course assessment process. We are able to 
demonstrate precisely how each objective is being achieved. I think the next big use for the 
rubric is to assess face-to-face classes. The rubric's focus on accessibility, alignment and 
transparency to students is relevant to synchronous, in-person classes as well. The rubric really is 
a guide for good teaching. In my Department, we have already taken some standards and asked 
all faculty to use them in their syllabi and teaching. How can you use QM in your own course? 
Many institutions and state consortiums belong to QM. If they subscribe, you have access to the 
full rubric and can request a course review from the Institutional Representative at your school. 
If your institution does not subscribe, you can ask the eLearning or Distance Learning office to 
become a part of Quality Matters. If that is not an option, you can still look at the rubric at 
http://www.qmprogram.org/rubric and use it to help improve your own course. You can 
incorporate many of QM's principles even without an official review. You can also take QM 
courses at non-subscriber prices and learn to improve your course by applying some of the rubric 
to its design. In closing, I would recommend Quality Matters as a way to improve online (and 
hybrid as well as face-to-face) classes by focusing on design issues, thereby freeing the instructor 
to focus on content and on interaction with students. Ultimately increased student success and 
satisfaction can result.  
 

References 
 
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (November 2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United 
States, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from 
http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf 
 
Instructional Technology Council. (March, 2012). 2011 Distance education survey results: 
Trends in  eLearning: Tracking The impact of eLearning at community colleges. Retrieved 
September 29, 2012 from 
http://www.itcnetwork.org/attachments/article/87/ITCAnnualSurveyMarch2012.pdf   
 
Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning in adult-oriented online courses: The impact of 
course design strategies. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 136-145. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001   
 
Quality Matters. (2012) Underlying Principles of Quality Matters. Retrieved from 
http://www.qmprogram.org September 27, 2012. 
 
Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2011). Linking online course design 
and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. The Internet and Higher 
Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.002 
 
 
 


