Administrator Needs: Standardizing Elements of a Digital Learning Program

As an administrator or department chair, you are in a unique position to shape an online program and establish programmatic requirements or recommendations. This is because you have been tasked with taking a broader view of the program, focusing not only on individual course development (as a faculty member might) but also on how an array of courses must be cohesively united to achieve certain goals, values, and accreditation standards. To that end, this piece focuses on why consistency across a program is integral to program quality and student success, and therefore why it falls within your purview to consider standardizing certain elements, requirements, and design choices across all courses in a program.

In this piece, the term “consistency” refers specifically to the recurring elements of courses in an online educational environment, such as navigation, document templates, communication format and frequency, citation style, late policies, and more. Consistency is important in this context as high standards for digitally enabled course design are essential for institutional success and student outcomes (Baldwin et al., 2018). Consistency allows faculty to feel supported and confident in their role and to work in coordination with the larger goals and values of the program. Furthermore, fostering standardization across courses helps students focus on learning, reduces cognitive load, and fosters confidence and motivation. For example, students have rated consistent navigation, module sequencing, and the use of video in faculty communication as especially valuable in their online learning experience. As a coordinator for the online program, you can help set standards to extend these experiences across all courses in a program (McMullan et al., 2022).

While this piece provides multiple ideas to help program chairs and administrators standardize elements of an online program, you do not need to implement all the suggestions below. Different programs will vary with regard to what is required versus recommended. However, if you consider the elements below, then your program will already be stronger than a program in which consistency is not valued, and the program as a whole is little more than the sum of its parts.

First, we will discuss elements directly relevant to program chairs and administrators. Second, we will focus on how you can support faculty in your program to participate in program consistency. Finally, the piece concludes with a short consideration of how students stand to benefit from program consistency.

An initial consideration for administrators and program chairs is the instructional model for the program.

Some programs use a model where previous courses can be copied each live term. Returning or new faculty use those copies to teach, altering the copies in accordance with their expertise and preferences. This model saves faculty a tremendous amount of time and allows a program to continue running a course even if the faculty member who built it is no longer associated with the program. It also promotes continuity and coherence for students across terms. However, any weaknesses in the original course may be replicated in every subsequent live edition of the course; you will also need to wade through and address questions of intellectual property before each course is built, notifying faculty that their course may be utilized by others. In direct opposition, other programs expect faculty to build their courses from scratch. Faculty may reuse their course from term to term, but they are not inheriting a course from others or sharing their own.

Each model has advantages and disadvantages and varies in terms of complexity. If your program uses this second model, where courses are not shared, it may be even more important to clearly articulate programmatic expectations such as navigation structure, citation style, syllabus template, and student engagement requirements. Whether faculty use a copied course or build it from scratch, you should also think about what programmatic requirements or recommendations you would like to be present in all courses across a program.

Consider developing and requiring the use of branded syllabus and document templates. Standardized templates help enhance clarity and alignment for both faculty and students (McMullan et al., 2022). They also provide a reliable structure for ensuring that departmental and institutional policies are accurately and consistently included across all courses. Additionally, the shared syllabus template is an ideal place to list course goals, requirements, and programmatic standards in a location with high visibility for students. If your program uses a third-party syllabus tool, be sure to inform faculty on how to properly implement the syllabus in their course.

When students spend less time relearning navigational and technological requirements from course to course, they can spend more time engaging with the content. Maintaining a consistent module sequence from course to course is therefore recommended. Give examples—or better yet, create a sample template in your learning management system (LMS)—with ideal module and page requirements. For example, ask that all courses be structured such that each module corresponds to one week of the term (e.g., Module 1 corresponds to Week 1, Module 2 to Week 2, and so on). An adherence to a standardized module-to-week structure can decrease any disorientation from course to course. Additionally, ask that the pages in each module follow a templated order. For example, each module might have a “Start Here” page, followed by a Reading page, and then a Lecture page.

A standard citation style can also be helpful in terms of perceivability and operability, both important principles in accessible course design. When readings and resources are listed in courses across a program in a consistent format, this prevents one course from just listing a bunch of URLs, another from using one citation style, and yet another from using a different style. With a standard citation style, resource details will be immediately intelligible to students.

Students report that timely and personal feedback is highly valuable in online learning; they also report that regular communication, including occasional video announcements, is beneficial (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). To this end, some programs ask faculty to fulfill a certain quota of announcements. For example, 1–2 announcements per week is a great middle ground between sending too few and too many announcements; the instructor doesn’t feel anonymous, but students aren’t inundated with information. Additionally, encouraging faculty to be transparent about grading and feedback can ensure the student experience doesn’t vary too much from course to course, with some faculty returning work immediately in preparation for the next module, and others taking weeks.

One oft-cited advantage of online and hybrid learning is flexibility. It appeals particularly to nontraditional or distance learners who do not have the interest or ability to participate in a fully on-campus, synchronous program. That being said, a program does not need to be entirely asynchronous or entirely synchronous. If your program is asynchronous, consider whether you would like to see faculty hold at least some synchronous sessions, such as office hours. Having guidance here will help prevent one faculty member from holding weekly synchronous sessions that count for a grade, while the very next class in the program might be entirely asynchronous with office hours by request. The result in this example would be an uneven experience where students don’t know what to expect from course to course.

Late policies can be thorny, and faculty often differ in how they handle late assignments. Some programs have opened a conversation among faculty and instituted a shared policy—such as a 10% per day deduction—that applies across all courses in a program. One effective compromise is to adopt a standard penalty as a baseline (e.g., 10% per day) while allowing faculty to offer extensions or waive penalties if desired, as the result is still greater consistency than would be attained otherwise. This approach fosters consistency by setting clear expectations for students while still respecting faculty autonomy. Even if a program-wide late policy is not enforced, you can still encourage faculty to ensure their policies are equitable and clearly stated in the syllabus.

Make sure faculty members disseminate necessary information about departmental or institutional academic integrity standards. This is another argument for a syllabus template, which allows this information to be conveniently present in all courses. This is especially relevant for artificial intelligence (AI) tools. As AI tools become more prevalent, a clear department- or university-level statement on AI usage can help make expectations consistent and clear for students, regardless of course or professor.

Consider whether or not the courses in your program will be subject to any sort of quality review. Since consistency in the above elements can help ensure a positive online learning experience, what—if anything—will you and your team do to ensure that certain levels of consistency are met? In some programs, this involves enrolling the program chair or administrators in course spaces so that any major consistency, accessibility, or design red flags can be addressed. In other programs, there is no formal review, but great effort is put into communicating standardized elements to faculty in hopes that they will participate in the program’s larger vision.

Whether the above elements in your online program are required or recommended, we have found that taking each into consideration and formulating a vision for their implementation improves the cohesiveness of online programs. But to standardize elements of an online program effectively, it is important to thoughtfully and efficiently communicate this information to the faculty who are teaching in the program. Therefore, we now want to look at best practices in making faculty active participants in your program’s goals of consistency.

When you arrange for faculty to build or teach the courses in an online program, it is important that they are oriented toward any requirements, goals, and values that have been agreed upon by program leadership and other key stakeholders. A consistent onboarding experience for faculty will help ensure everyone is on the same page, reducing the chances of extreme deviations in expectations—and therefore in the educational experiences produced—from faculty member to faculty member.

First, consider how you will welcome faculty and introduce them to the program. This introduction could take the form of a robust welcome email, an introductory session, or an onboarding course facilitated in your LMS. Regardless of the method, all the relevant information they need to succeed should be clearly communicated, including their role, any requirements, and the resources available to them. Let’s take each in turn.

Faculty should be informed of what course they are building or teaching, and when it is expected to launch. As mentioned above, it is also imperative that they are familiarized with the instructional model of the program (i.e., whether they are inheriting a built course or expected to build their own). Faculty can find it frustrating if their expectations are drastically different from what ends up being required. Additionally, it can be helpful to inform them whether they will or will not have support with the course. This can include having someone with instructional design experience help them build or revise a course, or a teaching assistant to help with grading and feedback.

The welcome email, session, or course is where you will want to communicate vital programmatic requirements and recommendations. Aligning with our list above, this is where faculty will learn about expectations for design standards, citation styles, communication and feedback, instructional modalities, late policies, AI use, course review, and more. Faculty buy-in is critical to the success of a program, so one of the advantages of an introductory session or online course is that you can engage faculty in discussion about their past successes and challenges in online teaching and calibrate the program organically over time. Maybe they’ve found that participating in discussions was more effective for establishing instructor presence than weekly video announcements—or maybe not. Open dialogue will allow the program to stay fresh and evolve with practices that students find motivating and enjoyable.

Finally, you should ensure that faculty are aware of the resources available to them—whether they have technical questions about the LMS, need to direct a student to an academic advisor, or have a payroll question for HR. This can reduce the volume of follow-up communications and prevent faculty from reaching out to various departments on campus and being bounced around. A centralized resource guide or FAQ document can go a long way.

The goal of consistency and standardization at the program level is simple—to improve the student experience. When course elements like navigation, design, and communication are consistent from one course to the next, students can spend more time learning and less time trying to adjust to varying expectations. They feel more confident moving through their program, with a clearer sense of what’s required of them. Students also tend to value certain elements—like instructor feedback and video announcements—more than faculty may realize, and they consistently rate standard course navigation and layout as especially helpful (McMullan et al., 2022). Faculty are subject matter experts, but they may not always see how their course fits into the larger program picture. As a program chair or administrator, you have the ability to take that broader view and implement student-centered elements across courses in a way that benefits the program as a whole.

By providing clear expectations around accessibility, late policies, and communication practices, you empower faculty to continuously support students and reduce uncertainty. Faculty can focus on their teaching, and students can rely on a consistent learning environment that helps them stay motivated. When students don’t have to relearn the course structure each term, their cognitive load decreases—and their satisfaction increases.

Baldwin, S., Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57.

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.

McMullan, T., Williams, D. S., Lagos Ortiz, Y., & Lollar, J. (2022). Is consistency possible? Course design and delivery to meet faculty and student needs. Current Issues in Education, 23(3).