The Quality Online Learning and Teaching (QOLT) program was developed to assist faculty, faculty developers, and instructional designers to more effectively (re)design hybrid and online courses. The QOLT evaluation instrument, containing 9 sections with 54 objectives, provides guidance and feedback to instructors. Each of the sections has a built-in rubric that provides feedback based on the instructor’s formative score. In addition, the QOLT program was developed to recognize and share exemplary practices in CSU hybrid/online courses. For further information, go to the CSU QOLT Call for Participation page or view a 1-hour informational webinar on the QOLT instrument and program.
The Quality Online Learning and Teaching evaluation instrument was developed after review of related research and literature, as well as careful consideration of existing models for assessing effective online teaching and learning.
- Rubric for Online Instruction: Designed to assist development and evaluation of online courses while promoting dialog about student learning. Developed at CSU Chico in 2003, ROI is now adopted at over 100 institutions of higher education.
- Quality Matters: Developed through a FIPSE grant from 2003-2006, QM is a faculty-centered, peer-review process designed to certify the quality of online and blended courses.
- Quality Online Course Initiative: An online course rubric and evaluation system developed in the state of Illinois to help colleges and universities improve accountability of their online courses.
- National Survey of Student Engagement: Hundreds of four-year colleges and universities surveyed since 2000 about student participation in programs and activities provided for their learning and personal development.
- Community of Inquiry: Addresses course quality on three aspects: Social Presence, Teaching Presence, and Cognitive Presence.
QOLT was also informed by research on effective teaching and learning that pre-dates, yet greatly informs, modern online teaching and learning (e.g., “7 Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” by Chickering & Gamson, 1987).
In addition, the QOLT instrument and process were greatly informed by a pilot that took place from August – December 2011 and was shaped by the input of several CSU groups and individuals. The following groups were consulted on weekly-to-monthly bases. QOLT was revised in September 2012, based on input from these groups, as well as from Campus Coordinators and faculty participants from the 2011-2012 program cycle.
- CSU, Learning Management System Services (system representation; weekly)
- CSU Moodle, Common Interest Group (10 campuses represented; bi-weekly)
- CSU BlackBoard, Common Interest Group (11 campuses represented; bi-weekly)
- CSU QOLT Advisory and Review Board (5 participants from 5 campuses; twice)
- CSU Directors of Academic Technology, Online Teaching Certification sub-group (twice)
- CSU Facutly Development Council (twice)
QOLT Awards Review Panel, 2013-2014
- Terre Allen, Director of Faculty Development, CSU Long Beach
- Victoria Bhavsar, Ph.D., Director of Faculty Development, Cal Poly Pomona
- Beverly Bondad-Brown, Associate Director, Ed Tech, CSU Los Angeles
- Sara Cooper, Director of Faculty Development, CSU Chico
- Tonia Malone, Instructional Designer, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
- Shiree Martinez, Instructional Designer, CSU Bakersfield
- Linda Woods, Instructional Designer, San Diego State University
- Ashley Skylar, Director, CSU Center for Excellence & Innovation in Online Ed.
- Ann Steckel, Director of Educational Design & Curricular Innovation, Sonoma State University