Designing effective online courses require more than just content expertise—it calls for intentional strategies that foster engagement, relevance, accessibility, and real-world relevance in learning environments where students thrive.
Risepoint transformed its approach to instructional design through careful research, collaborative feedback, and a deep understanding of what drives student success. We leveraged data from the 13th year of our Voice of the Online learner and surveyed 1,300 program leads and faculty who work at our partners. Through this process we have defined what we believe are the key attributes to a great learning experience.
Let’s explore the Risepoint Design Tenets, practical ways to implement them, and the QM standards that support and align with the tenets.
At Risepoint, our commitment to programmatic alignment is rooted in the belief that students are investing in a holistic program experience—not just a single course. We encourage course developers to consider the broader student journey: Who are your students? Why did they choose this program? What are their goals after graduation? By keeping these questions at the forefront, we ensure that every course, assessment, and learning activity is intentionally connected to the overarching program goals, creating a coherent and meaningful pathway for learners.
Programmatic alignment goes beyond mapping objectives and assessments within a course; it’s about designing each course as a building block in the larger program structure. For example, if your program includes a capstone course, consider how your course can lay the groundwork for the skills and knowledge students will need to succeed in that culminating experience. This approach not only clarifies expectations and supports deeper learning, but also increases student motivation by helping them see how each course fits into their long-term academic and professional aspirations (Alammary, 2019).
We can implement alignment in several ways, for example:
- Use of a program-wide course framework that includes academic, technology, and institutional support.
- Consistent course structure using an LMS template and easy to anticipate due dates across the program
- Clearly articulating module and course objectives, mapping them to program outcomes.
- Clearly articulating alignment between module objectives and all course content.
- Regularly reviewing and updating course materials to maintain alignment as programs evolve.
By articulating the alignment between objectives and content, you are not only creating a roadmap for your students, you are also meeting essential QM standards. Alignment across objectives, assessments, and materials is linked to improved student achievement and satisfaction and helps students understand expectations and track their progress (QM Rubric 7th Ed.).
Standards directly impacted by this tenet are:
- General Standard 2 outlines many essential standards pertaining to the learning objectives, ensuring that they are described to learners, for learners, and are prominently located in the course.
- Specific Review Standards 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1 can be met by the clear articulation of the alignment.
We heard from thousands of students in the 2024 Voice of the Online Learner and found that 95% of students are pursuing degrees not just for knowledge, but to advance their careers—whether that means landing a new job, earning a promotion, or gaining skills for a changing workforce. That’s why workforce relevance is a core design tenet: we ask course developers to consider, “What will students do with this degree? How will this course help them achieve their professional goals?”
Workforce relevance integrates real-world applications, current industry practices, and authentic assessments to prepare students for professional success. Embedding workforce skills and authentic tasks in course design enhances student engagement and employability, as students see direct connections between coursework and career readiness (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2021). By tackling real-world problems, students develop a deeper understanding of course material while also building collaborative and communication skills—key competencies for career success. This shift from passive learning (simply absorbing lectures) to active participation ensures students are prepared to meet the demands of today’s job market.We can implement workforce relevance in several ways, for example:
- Incorporating case studies, scenarios, and storytelling that mirror workplace challenges.
- Incorporating problem-based or scenario-based learning
- Designing assessments that require students to apply theory to practice.
- Utilizing technologies common in the target workplace.
- Updating course content regularly to reflect current industry standards and technologies.
When you design for workforce relevance, you not only prepare students for real-world career success, you also address key elements that contribute to meeting standards outlined in QM standards.
Standards directly impacted by this tenet are:
- Specific Review Standard 3.1: The assessments measure the achievement of the stated learning objectives.
- Specific Review Standard 3.4: The course includes multiple types of assessments that are sequenced and suited to the level of the course.
- Specific Review Standard 4.5: Instructional materials are current and relevant.
- Specific Review Standard 5.1: Learning activities promote achievement of learning objectives and outcomes.
Active learning strategies transform students from passive recipients of information into active participants who engage in meaningful activities requiring critical thinking, collaboration, and real-world application. Recent research confirms that active learning significantly improves student performance, retention, and critical thinking compared to traditional lecture-based approaches (Theobald et al., 2020).
We can implement active learning strategies in several ways, for example:
- Group Problem-Solving: Assign students to small groups to collaboratively tackle real-world scenarios or case studies, such as evaluating a business challenge and presenting solutions to the class. This not only builds content knowledge but also strengthens teamwork and communication skills.
- Peer Review and Reflection: Use peer critique assignments or think-pair-share activities, where students review each other’s work or discuss guided questions in pairs before sharing insights with the larger group. These strategies promote learner-learner and learner-content interaction.
- Leveraging Interactive Tools: Integrate technology such as discussion boards, polling software, virtual simulations, or breakout rooms for synchronous sessions. For example, students might participate in a virtual field trip using VR software or collaborate in an online simulation to solve a complex problem.
- Creation-Based Assignments: Encourage students to create content—like infographics, short videos, or concept maps—that demonstrates their understanding of key concepts. These assignments foster deeper engagement and allow students to apply knowledge creatively.
- Problem and Scenario-based Learning: Engage students, encourage self-directed learning, and foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills by incorporating student-centered, activities that enrich the learning experience.
By incorporating active learning strategies, such as collaborative projects, scenario-based exercises, or interactive technology, you engage students in meaningful, hands-on learning, and meet QM standards. These strategies ensure your course tools and activities are purposefully chosen to help students achieve learning objectives, foster student autonomy, and create equitable opportunities for all learners
Standards directly impacted by this tenet are:
- Specific Review Standard 4.2: The relationship between instructional materials and learning activities is clearly explained.
- Specific Review Standard 5.2: Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction and engagement.
- Specific Review Standard 6.2: Course tools promote learner engagement and active learning.
Intentional connections foster a sense of community, ensuring students feel supported and engaged with both peers and instructors. Strong instructor and peer connections are linked to higher engagement, persistence, and academic success, especially in online and hybrid environments (Martin & Bolliger, 2018; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2020).
We can implement intentional connections in several ways, for example:
- Design opportunities for frequent, meaningful feedback and interaction.
- Use discussion forums, virtual office hours, and collaborative projects.
- Scaffold learning so students can practice new concepts and receive timely feedback.
When you foster intentional connections with your students, you not only enhance their sense of belonging and participation, but you also address important elements that contribute to meeting QM standards, such as promoting substantive instructor-learner interaction, regular feedback, and inclusive engagement opportunities
Standards directly impacted by this tenet are:
- Specific Review Standard 1.3: Communication guidelines for the course are clearly stated.
- Specific Review Standard 3.5: The types and timing of assessments provide learners with multiple opportunities to track their learning progress with timely feedback.
- Specific Review Standard 3.6: Assessments provide guidance to uphold academic integrity.
- Specific Review Standard 5.2: Learning activities provide opportunities for interactions that support active learning.
- Specific Review Standard 5.3: The instructor’s plan for regular interaction with learners in substantive ways during the course is clearly stated.
- Specific Review Standard 5.4: The requirements for learner interaction are clearly stated.
A standards-based approach ensures courses are clear, accessible, and consistent, rooted in established quality frameworks like QM and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Studies show that courses with consistent structure and clear standards reduce cognitive load, increase accessibility, and improve student outcomes, particularly for diverse learners (Al-Azawei et al., 2017; Kent et al., 2022).
We can implement a standards-based approach in several ways, for example:
- Provide clear assignment instructions, grading criteria, and rubrics.
- Ensure course navigation is intuitive, and materials are accessible.
- Apply adult learning theory and UDL principles to support diverse learners.
Designing your course with clear objectives, aligned activities, and purposeful use of technology sets students up for success from their very first interaction and you address key elements that contribute to meeting QM’s standards-based framework—such as clarity, alignment, and effective use of tools to support learning objectives.
Standards directly impacted by this tenet are:
- Specific Review Standard 1.1: Instructions make clear how to get started and where to find various course components.
- Specific Review Standard 1.2: Learners are introduced to the purpose and structure of the course.
- Specific Review Standard 3.3: Specific and descriptive criteria are provided for the evaluation of learners’ work, and their connection to the course grading policy is clearly explained.
- Specific Review Standard 4.2: The relationship between the use of instructional materials in the course and completion of learning activities and assessments is clearly explained.
- General Standard 8: Course navigation facilitates ease of use.
Conclusion
By grounding your course design in these five tenets—Programmatic Alignment, Workforce Relevance, Active Learning Strategies, Intentional Connections, and Standards-Based—you can create learning experiences that set students up to succeed in the program and each course . Rounded in research, experience, and QM standards, each tenet guides the development of courses that are responsive to the needs of today’s diverse learners and tomorrow’s workforce.
References
- Quality Matters. (2023). QM Higher Education Rubric, Seventh Edition.
- Alammary, A. (2019). Blended learning models for introductory programming courses: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 14(11), e0221765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221765
- Jackson, D., & Bridgstock, R. (2021). Evidencing employability in higher education: The case for authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1782341
- Theobald, E. J., et al. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
- Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2020). The community of inquiry framework: Ten years later. Internet and Higher Education, 43, 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100402 - Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2017). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(3), 56-81. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v17i3.22106
Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2022). Structure and interaction in online learning: A review of research. Computers & Education, 176, 104358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104358
