Project Overview
The Online Course Design Model is the product of an international research collaboration between National University of Science and Technology MISIS (Russia) and Union Institute and University (US). It was largely inspired by the growing demand for degree and certificate courses online in Russia. This demand creates challenges for teaching professionals who need to acquire new skills of designing and delivering online courses for various types of learners. There are currently no established professional standards for teachers working in higher education, either for in-person or online delivery.
The model is innovative in that it focuses on course design competencies. It acknowledges and incorporates both universal and culturally-specific aspects of course design. National University of Science and Technology MISIS is a major Russian university with a reputation as a leader in educational innovations. It was the first in the country to introduce the blended learning model in its language training and has recently launched the international master’s program Second Language Teaching and Pedagogical Design in Digital Environments. The American partner, Union Institute and University, is a small, adult-oriented, largely-virtual university with a half century of experience in distance and online learning. Both countries’ project team setups represented diverse professional backgrounds, including teaching, course and material design, instructional design, educational psychology, educational technologies, academic marketing and project management. The model is designed specifically for faculty members designing online courses. As the project is currently under way, we are happy to present here the model prototype and provide a brief description of the competency model components.
The Online Course Design Model is the first step to the Comprehensive Online Course Design Guide.
As the model was tailored specifically to the needs of teachers designing online courses, it was deemed vital to introduce components which reflect the process of course creation from multifarious perspectives. Not only were teachers regarded as those whose primary aim is to transmit knowledge and mediate student-university relationships, but also as those who foster cultural awareness on local and global scales. While the model itself might be used to analyze and evaluate both up-and-coming and mature online courses, its primary aim is to provide a step-by-step guide for teachers to design new online courses from scratch. At the same time, with each descriptor being divided into three levels — novice, application, and constructive — the model might be used in teacher training and teacher performance evaluation to recognize and reinforce teaching excellence in online course design.
The model prototype covers four major domains of course design: human and cultural factors, information literacy, teaching design, including front-end design, and digital literacy. The first three might apply to both online and offline contexts, whereas the latter one is specific to the digital educational environment. Culture specific competencies that have found their way into the model are not allocated into a separate competency domain but are interwoven into the major ones; hereinafter marked as UIU or MISIS CS Competency depending on the institution which identified them as essential for their context.
Table 1. Competency Model Prototype
Human and Culture Factors focus on the needs of students as a target audience and involve conducting a needs analysis before setting out to create a new course or revise the already existing one (Competency 1) and identifying relevant content materials both from educational (Competency 2) and cultural (UIU CS Competency 3) perspectives.
Information Literacy presupposes teachers’ ability to be able to work in a competitive environment (MISIS CS Competency 6) and thus be able to identify and incorporate legal and regulatory requirements (Competency 4) as well as to demonstrate general information literacy in selecting resources for the course (Competency 5).
The domain of Design provides instructional course developers with a solid battery of descriptors which might enhance the quality and the effectiveness of online courses. They include composing course goals and learning objectives (Competency 7), identifying and creating learning activities (Competency 9) and pertinent assessment tools (Competency 8), designing an exhaustive and comprehensive syllabus (Competency 10) and interface with ergonomic principles in mind (Competency 11) to create an inclusive learning environment (UIU CS Competency 13) accessible for all students (UIU CS Competency 12). Owing to the fact that students from different social and cultural backgrounds are to access and interact with the course, the front-end design section of the model encourages teachers to align, execute, and revise it (Competency 18) as well as to conduct its expertise (MISIS CS Competency 19).
Digital Literacy components describe teachers’ technical competency in selecting and justifying the use of learner management systems (LMS) in the course (MISIS CS Competency 14), teachers’ skills in choosing an array of digital tools which might be instrumental in the course (Competency 15) including the use of various media resources (Competency 16) and teachers’ ability to create media resources specifically tailored for the course (Competency 17).
While working on the competency model, we discovered that although the main domains were consistent across both countries, certain competencies held significance in one country while being irrelevant or considered an integral part of other competencies in the other country.
For NUST MISIS, the culturally specific competencies such as “Understand and navigate competitive landscape”, “Conduct the expertise of the course”, and “Select and justify LMS and other digital tools to achieve learning objectives” turned out to be crucial elements. Let us delve deeper into these competencies and provide a rationale for their inclusion.
In the context of contemporary markets, characterized by a wide variety of training courses and intensified competition due to globalization and widespread Internet connectivity, the competency “Understand and navigate competitive landscape” comes across as paramount. The competency involves conducting thorough market research to comprehend the competitive landscape. By delving into various factors and dynamics that influence the success and positioning of the course in relation to other similar offerings, course developers can identify key points for course promotion, and validate the course idea. This competency arises from the understanding that market research aids in analyzing market data, gauging course demand, assessing competition, and minimizing the risk of failure. By validating the course idea before investing significant time and resources, this competency ensures a higher chance of success.
Turning to the competency “Select and justify LMS and other digital tools to achieve learning objectives”, the task of comparing and selecting suitable Learning Management System (LMS) options from the diverse market offerings becomes essential for instructional course developers. The selection of an appropriate LMS is determined by meeting hosting and institutional requirements. In Russia, course developers often encounter the challenge of either not being provided with a platform by the institution or having multiple options to choose from. Moreover, considering the specifications and demands of the course, the available LMS options may not fully meet all the requirements. Consequently, course developers need to possess the competency to evaluate LMS platforms features and determine which additional tools can be effectively integrated to optimize the learning experience and align with the course goals and objectives. In such cases, strategies for LMS selection based on needs analysis and the anticipated outcomes of the course play a critical role.
According to our empirical studies, it has been observed that many instructional design developers tend to focus on conducting expertise for individual elements of their courses, such as video lectures or assignments, but overlook the importance of conducting a comprehensive expertise of the entire instructional product. This gap highlights the significance of the final culturally specific competency for NUST MISIS, which is “Conduct the expertise of the course”. This expertise goes beyond proofreading course materials and checking link functionality.
According to our analysis, the final expertise process involves conducting a thorough assessment of the course, covering various aspects such as layout, content, instructional methods, assessment systems, technical elements, and front-end design, all of which should be carefully aligned with the needs analysis, course goals and objectives. By undertaking the expertise of the entire course, developers can identify areas for improvement, make informed refinements, and ensure that the course is aligned with established best practices and pedagogical principles. This approach enhances the overall quality of the course, leading to enhanced learning outcomes and a more impactful educational experience for learners.
By incorporating these culturally specific competencies into the broader competency model, our intention is to address the unique requirements and considerations that arise in the context of course development in Russia.
From Union Institute and University, three culturally specific competencies were identified as essential to an American context. The first is “Identify Content that Reflects Cultural Diversity.” While there is a good argument to be made that this competency could be covered by competency two — Identify materials that are relevant, accessible and meaningful — a separate competency focused on cultural diversity was identified by our American team as essential. While Competency 2 focused on making sure that learners were exposed to material that resonated with them, Competency 3 focuses on making sure that the material reflects the society and the world at large. Because of the central role that racial injustice has played in the United States’ history, and the defining impact that immigration has had on our country’s past and present, the team felt that this needed to be a competency on its own. It is different than other competencies in its explicit commitment to social justice. It is rooted in the conviction that course content (and all media) has a political function and that the material that we post either upholds social norms or challenges them.
The second culturally specific competency is “Design for Accessibility to all Learners.” Like the first, this competency is informed by American commitments to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (DEIB). On the macro level, this competency requires instructors to demonstrate awareness of Universal Design for Learning principles: providing multiple means of engagement (ways for students to engage with the material), multiple means of representation (ways to present material eg. handouts, videos), and multiple means of action and expression (ways for students to demonstrate learning). More specifically, faculty demonstrate this competency by ensuring accessibility to all learners, regardless of disability, by using accessibility checkers and tools such as alternative text, closed captions, color contrast, and appropriate font size.
Finally, the American team identified “Create an Inclusive Learning Environment” as a culturally specific competency. This is rooted in an awareness of the barriers that some students face in learning. This competency requires teachers to develop teaching practices that foster inclusivity, ensuring that all students are welcomed into classroom spaces. It also means that teachers need to foster cross cultural awareness through teaching and learning activities, acknowledging DEIB not only in the material that they choose but the activities that they design. And finally, it requires teachers to provide clear instructions for students, making explicit the practices sometimes known as the “hidden curriculum”, including identifying the goal of the assignment, identifying the skills and knowledge necessary to completing it, breaking down the steps, and providing examples.
There are important commonalities in these three culturally specific competencies. Each is rooted in a vision of a diverse society, one that is informed by Black Lives Matter and other American movements. And each is ‘activist’ in that it identifies power dynamics involved in teaching and learning and seeks to provide access and support to traditionally disempowered groups. While these commitments are not specific to the United States, they are central to contemporary conversations in American universities.
At the moment our teams are concluding the trials and finalizing the model with the descriptors. The results will be available on our website and joint publications in Russia and the US.
RUSSIAN TEAM (NUST MISIS):
Ekaterina Shchaveleva, Head of the Master’s Program in Second Language Teaching and Pedagogical Design in Digital Environments
Lilia Bondareva, Head of the Department of Modern Languages and Communication and supervises the international program on Communication and International Public Relations
Olesya Tolstykh, Associate Professor at the Department of Modern Languages and Communication
Dana Saulembekova, Deputy Department Head for Development, Department of Modern Languages and Communication
Aida Rodomanchenko, Associate Professor at the Department of Modern Languages and Communication
US TEAM (UIU):
Dr. Woden Teachout, Faculty Development Director in UIU’s Center for Teaching and Learning
Bob Cotter, Director of Union’s Center for Teaching and Learning
Dr. Yulia Tolstikov-Mast, Chair of the Ethical and Creative Leadership concentration in Union’s PhD program
Dr. Sarah Bergh, Head of UIU’s Faculty Distance Teaching & Learning Committee
Kels Park, Affiliate Faculty at Union’s Online Writing Center and an experienced facilitator
Registration
Project Overview
The Online Course Design Model is the product of an international research collaboration between National University of Science and Technology MISIS (Russia) and Union Institute and University (US). It was largely inspired by the growing demand for degree and certificate courses online in Russia. This demand creates challenges for teaching professionals who need to acquire new skills of designing and delivering online courses for various types of learners. There are currently no established professional standards for teachers working in higher education, either for in-person or online delivery.
The model is innovative in that it focuses on course design competencies. It acknowledges and incorporates both universal and culturally-specific aspects of course design. National University of Science and Technology MISIS is a major Russian university with a reputation as a leader in educational innovations. It was the first in the country to introduce the blended learning model in its language training and has recently launched the international master’s program Second Language Teaching and Pedagogical Design in Digital Environments. The American partner, Union Institute and University, is a small, adult-oriented, largely-virtual university with a half century of experience in distance and online learning. Both countries’ project team setups represented diverse professional backgrounds, including teaching, course and material design, instructional design, educational psychology, educational technologies, academic marketing and project management. The model is designed specifically for faculty members designing online courses. As the project is currently under way, we are happy to present here the model prototype and provide a brief description of the competency model components.
The Online Course Design Model is the first step to the Comprehensive Online Course Design Guide.
As the model was tailored specifically to the needs of teachers designing online courses, it was deemed vital to introduce components which reflect the process of course creation from multifarious perspectives. Not only were teachers regarded as those whose primary aim is to transmit knowledge and mediate student-university relationships, but also as those who foster cultural awareness on local and global scales. While the model itself might be used to analyze and evaluate both up-and-coming and mature online courses, its primary aim is to provide a step-by-step guide for teachers to design new online courses from scratch. At the same time, with each descriptor being divided into three levels — novice, application, and constructive — the model might be used in teacher training and teacher performance evaluation to recognize and reinforce teaching excellence in online course design.
The model prototype covers four major domains of course design: human and cultural factors, information literacy, teaching design, including front-end design, and digital literacy. The first three might apply to both online and offline contexts, whereas the latter one is specific to the digital educational environment. Culture specific competencies that have found their way into the model are not allocated into a separate competency domain but are interwoven into the major ones; hereinafter marked as UIU or MISIS CS Competency depending on the institution which identified them as essential for their context.
Table 1. Competency Model Prototype
Human and Culture Factors focus on the needs of students as a target audience and involve conducting a needs analysis before setting out to create a new course or revise the already existing one (Competency 1) and identifying relevant content materials both from educational (Competency 2) and cultural (UIU CS Competency 3) perspectives.
Information Literacy presupposes teachers’ ability to be able to work in a competitive environment (MISIS CS Competency 6) and thus be able to identify and incorporate legal and regulatory requirements (Competency 4) as well as to demonstrate general information literacy in selecting resources for the course (Competency 5).
The domain of Design provides instructional course developers with a solid battery of descriptors which might enhance the quality and the effectiveness of online courses. They include composing course goals and learning objectives (Competency 7), identifying and creating learning activities (Competency 9) and pertinent assessment tools (Competency 8), designing an exhaustive and comprehensive syllabus (Competency 10) and interface with ergonomic principles in mind (Competency 11) to create an inclusive learning environment (UIU CS Competency 13) accessible for all students (UIU CS Competency 12). Owing to the fact that students from different social and cultural backgrounds are to access and interact with the course, the front-end design section of the model encourages teachers to align, execute, and revise it (Competency 18) as well as to conduct its expertise (MISIS CS Competency 19).
Digital Literacy components describe teachers’ technical competency in selecting and justifying the use of learner management systems (LMS) in the course (MISIS CS Competency 14), teachers’ skills in choosing an array of digital tools which might be instrumental in the course (Competency 15) including the use of various media resources (Competency 16) and teachers’ ability to create media resources specifically tailored for the course (Competency 17).
While working on the competency model, we discovered that although the main domains were consistent across both countries, certain competencies held significance in one country while being irrelevant or considered an integral part of other competencies in the other country.
For NUST MISIS, the culturally specific competencies such as “Understand and navigate competitive landscape”, “Conduct the expertise of the course”, and “Select and justify LMS and other digital tools to achieve learning objectives” turned out to be crucial elements. Let us delve deeper into these competencies and provide a rationale for their inclusion.
In the context of contemporary markets, characterized by a wide variety of training courses and intensified competition due to globalization and widespread Internet connectivity, the competency “Understand and navigate competitive landscape” comes across as paramount. The competency involves conducting thorough market research to comprehend the competitive landscape. By delving into various factors and dynamics that influence the success and positioning of the course in relation to other similar offerings, course developers can identify key points for course promotion, and validate the course idea. This competency arises from the understanding that market research aids in analyzing market data, gauging course demand, assessing competition, and minimizing the risk of failure. By validating the course idea before investing significant time and resources, this competency ensures a higher chance of success.
Turning to the competency “Select and justify LMS and other digital tools to achieve learning objectives”, the task of comparing and selecting suitable Learning Management System (LMS) options from the diverse market offerings becomes essential for instructional course developers. The selection of an appropriate LMS is determined by meeting hosting and institutional requirements. In Russia, course developers often encounter the challenge of either not being provided with a platform by the institution or having multiple options to choose from. Moreover, considering the specifications and demands of the course, the available LMS options may not fully meet all the requirements. Consequently, course developers need to possess the competency to evaluate LMS platforms features and determine which additional tools can be effectively integrated to optimize the learning experience and align with the course goals and objectives. In such cases, strategies for LMS selection based on needs analysis and the anticipated outcomes of the course play a critical role.
According to our empirical studies, it has been observed that many instructional design developers tend to focus on conducting expertise for individual elements of their courses, such as video lectures or assignments, but overlook the importance of conducting a comprehensive expertise of the entire instructional product. This gap highlights the significance of the final culturally specific competency for NUST MISIS, which is “Conduct the expertise of the course”. This expertise goes beyond proofreading course materials and checking link functionality.
According to our analysis, the final expertise process involves conducting a thorough assessment of the course, covering various aspects such as layout, content, instructional methods, assessment systems, technical elements, and front-end design, all of which should be carefully aligned with the needs analysis, course goals and objectives. By undertaking the expertise of the entire course, developers can identify areas for improvement, make informed refinements, and ensure that the course is aligned with established best practices and pedagogical principles. This approach enhances the overall quality of the course, leading to enhanced learning outcomes and a more impactful educational experience for learners.
By incorporating these culturally specific competencies into the broader competency model, our intention is to address the unique requirements and considerations that arise in the context of course development in Russia.
From Union Institute and University, three culturally specific competencies were identified as essential to an American context. The first is “Identify Content that Reflects Cultural Diversity.” While there is a good argument to be made that this competency could be covered by competency two — Identify materials that are relevant, accessible and meaningful — a separate competency focused on cultural diversity was identified by our American team as essential. While Competency 2 focused on making sure that learners were exposed to material that resonated with them, Competency 3 focuses on making sure that the material reflects the society and the world at large. Because of the central role that racial injustice has played in the United States’ history, and the defining impact that immigration has had on our country’s past and present, the team felt that this needed to be a competency on its own. It is different than other competencies in its explicit commitment to social justice. It is rooted in the conviction that course content (and all media) has a political function and that the material that we post either upholds social norms or challenges them.
The second culturally specific competency is “Design for Accessibility to all Learners.” Like the first, this competency is informed by American commitments to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (DEIB). On the macro level, this competency requires instructors to demonstrate awareness of Universal Design for Learning principles: providing multiple means of engagement (ways for students to engage with the material), multiple means of representation (ways to present material eg. handouts, videos), and multiple means of action and expression (ways for students to demonstrate learning). More specifically, faculty demonstrate this competency by ensuring accessibility to all learners, regardless of disability, by using accessibility checkers and tools such as alternative text, closed captions, color contrast, and appropriate font size.
Finally, the American team identified “Create an Inclusive Learning Environment” as a culturally specific competency. This is rooted in an awareness of the barriers that some students face in learning. This competency requires teachers to develop teaching practices that foster inclusivity, ensuring that all students are welcomed into classroom spaces. It also means that teachers need to foster cross cultural awareness through teaching and learning activities, acknowledging DEIB not only in the material that they choose but the activities that they design. And finally, it requires teachers to provide clear instructions for students, making explicit the practices sometimes known as the “hidden curriculum”, including identifying the goal of the assignment, identifying the skills and knowledge necessary to completing it, breaking down the steps, and providing examples.
There are important commonalities in these three culturally specific competencies. Each is rooted in a vision of a diverse society, one that is informed by Black Lives Matter and other American movements. And each is ‘activist’ in that it identifies power dynamics involved in teaching and learning and seeks to provide access and support to traditionally disempowered groups. While these commitments are not specific to the United States, they are central to contemporary conversations in American universities.
At the moment our teams are concluding the trials and finalizing the model with the descriptors. The results will be available on our website and joint publications in Russia and the US.
RUSSIAN TEAM (NUST MISIS):
Ekaterina Shchaveleva, Head of the Master’s Program in Second Language Teaching and Pedagogical Design in Digital Environments
Lilia Bondareva, Head of the Department of Modern Languages and Communication and supervises the international program on Communication and International Public Relations
Olesya Tolstykh, Associate Professor at the Department of Modern Languages and Communication
Dana Saulembekova, Deputy Department Head for Development, Department of Modern Languages and Communication
Aida Rodomanchenko, Associate Professor at the Department of Modern Languages and Communication
US TEAM (UIU):
Dr. Woden Teachout, Faculty Development Director in UIU’s Center for Teaching and Learning
Bob Cotter, Director of Union’s Center for Teaching and Learning
Dr. Yulia Tolstikov-Mast, Chair of the Ethical and Creative Leadership concentration in Union’s PhD program
Dr. Sarah Bergh, Head of UIU’s Faculty Distance Teaching & Learning Committee
Kels Park, Affiliate Faculty at Union’s Online Writing Center and an experienced facilitator