Student perceptions of the impact of quality matters essential standards in an animal physiology course

As online learning becomes increasingly popular in higher education, the quality of courses that utilize this modality is becoming a focus of inquiry. Quality Matters (QM) is a leading quality assurance organization that reviews online and hybrid (partially online, partially in-person) courses for standards of pedagogy and instructional design and certifies courses that sufficiently meet these standards. In this study, we examine student perceptions of course quality in a hybrid three-credit-hour animal science course that has been certified by QM. The class met twice a week for 1.25 h with one class period online and one in person. It consisted of 11 modules, each of which included learning content, learning activities, and assessments. Upon completion, 46 of 114 students completed a survey in which they rated the course on each of the 21 QM essential standards (Fifth edition). Descriptive analysis revealed that for 19 of the 21 specific review standards, 75% to 91% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the course reflected the best practice described in the standard. For the other two standards, over half of students (72%, 63%) agreed or strongly agreed that best practices were reflected in course design. Another way to examine the data is to collapse specific review standards into eight general review categories as specified by QM; the collapsed data revealed that 75% to 88% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the course design reflected the eight general course design standards. The percentage of students disagreeing that the course reflected each best practice was 11% or lower. Cronbach analysis to examine the internal consistency of the QM questionnaire (0.96), indicated instrument reliability and stability. A principal component analysis of the data conducted to further examine features and patterns of student responses revealed four primary factors that students rated highly (learning objectives, learner interaction and engagement, accessibility and usability, and clarity) that explained 78% of the data variance. This study demonstrates that the high quality of course design and delivery in a QM-certified course is clear to students. and provides justification for the investment in high-quality online and hybrid course design. In the future, we plan to compare student perceptions of course quality in a course that has not been QM-certified with one that has, as well as the impact of those revisions on student outcomes.