Quality & Standards
How the HQCDP framework meets Quality Matters standards and ensures federal RSI compliance
QM Alignment Overview
Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, faculty-centered peer review process designed to certify the quality of online and blended courses. Rooted in research-based standards, QM provides a scalable framework for continuous improvement that ensures courses are designed to promote learner success. Institutions use QM to validate that their online offerings meet rigorous benchmarks across eight General Standards encompassing 22 Essential Standards.
The HQCDP framework was built from the ground up with QM alignment as a core design principle, not an afterthought. Every structural decision — from the four-phase learning cycle to the modular architecture to the assessment strategy — was made with QM Essential Standards in view. The result is a course design that meets all 22 Essential Standards across all 8 General Standard areas, providing institutions with audit-ready evidence of quality from day one.
22/22
Essential Standards Met
8
General Standards Covered
100%
Alignment
Content below documents how each QM standard is met. Download the Full QM Alignment Summary
QM Essential Standards Alignment
Complete mapping of all 22 QM Essential Standards to HQCDP framework features and evidence locations.
| Standard # | Standard Description | How HQCDP Meets It | Evidence Location |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Standard 1: Course Overview & Introduction | |||
| 1.1 | Clear instructions for getting started and navigating the course | The HQCDP framework includes a dedicated “Start Here” module that provides step-by-step orientation instructions for every course. This module walks students through the Canvas LMS interface, explains the four-phase learning cycle (Learn, Practice, Apply, Assess), and includes a required syllabus acknowledgment activity. Students cannot proceed to Module 1 until they complete orientation tasks, ensuring every learner begins with a clear understanding of course expectations and navigation. | Start Here Module; Teaching Plan Introduction; Canvas Home Page |
| 1.2 | Learners are introduced to the purpose and structure of the course | Each course includes a comprehensive introduction that communicates the course description, scope, and learning arc across all eight modules. The Start Here module presents the course narrative (e.g., “What is America?” for the history courses), explains how modules build on each other thematically, and outlines the portfolio project that threads through the entire course. The Teaching Plan further provides faculty with student-facing language that contextualizes why the course matters and how it is organized. | Start Here Module; Teaching Plan Section 1; Course Map Overview |
| 1.3 | Communication expectations are clearly stated | The HQCDP framework specifies communication norms in the Start Here module, including instructor response time expectations (typically 24–48 hours for emails, 72 hours for grading), netiquette guidelines for discussion boards, and preferred communication channels within Canvas (Inbox, Announcements, Discussion Boards). The Teaching Plan includes template language for the syllabus section on communication policies, and each module’s discussion board includes a reminder of interaction expectations. | Start Here Module; Teaching Plan Communication Policy; Discussion Board Instructions |
| 1.5 | Minimum technology requirements are clearly stated | The Start Here module includes a dedicated technology requirements section that lists the hardware, software, and internet connectivity needed for success. Because the HQCDP framework uses exclusively OER materials and Canvas-native tools, technology requirements are minimal and equitable: a modern web browser, reliable internet access, and a word processor for portfolio submissions. The framework avoids proprietary software or paid publisher platforms, reducing technology barriers for students. | Start Here Module; Teaching Plan Technology Section |
| 1.6 | Technical skills required for the course are clearly stated | The Start Here module identifies prerequisite technical skills including basic computer literacy, ability to navigate an LMS, uploading files, posting to discussion forums, and taking online quizzes. For students who need support, links to Canvas student guides and institutional help desk resources are provided. The HQCDP framework is intentionally designed so that no advanced technical skills are required, keeping the focus on content mastery rather than technology proficiency. | Start Here Module; Teaching Plan Technical Skills Section |
| General Standard 2: Learning Objectives (Competencies) | |||
| 2.1 | Course learning objectives are measurable and clearly stated | Each HQCDP course includes 4–6 overarching course learning objectives (CLOs) written using measurable action verbs aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy. These CLOs are stated in the syllabus, the Start Here module, and the Course Map. For example, CLOs include verbs such as “analyze,” “evaluate,” “construct,” and “compare,” ensuring they can be assessed through the framework’s assessment architecture (quizzes, discussions, portfolio, exams). | Course Map CLO Section; Start Here Module; Syllabus |
| 2.2 | Module/unit learning objectives are measurable and clearly stated | Every module in the HQCDP framework opens with 3–5 module learning objectives (MLOs) that use Bloom’s-aligned action verbs and describe specific, observable outcomes. These MLOs are displayed on the module landing page in Canvas and are documented in both the Course Map and Teaching Plan. Each MLO directly maps to at least one assessment within the module, creating a verifiable alignment chain from objective to evidence of learning. | Course Map Modules 1–8; Teaching Plan Module Objectives; Canvas Module Pages |
| 2.3 | Learning objectives are stated clearly from the learner’s perspective | All objectives in the HQCDP framework use student-centered language beginning with “By the end of this module, you will be able to…” followed by a measurable verb and specific content. The Teaching Plan provides faculty with exact student-facing phrasing, and the Course Map documents the pedagogical rationale behind each objective. This learner-centered framing ensures students understand what is expected of them and can self-assess their progress. | Teaching Plan Module Objectives; Course Map Objectives; Canvas Module Introductions |
| 2.5 | Learning objectives suit the level of the course | The HQCDP framework uses a scaffolded approach to Bloom’s Taxonomy, with early modules emphasizing lower-order skills (identify, describe, explain) and later modules requiring higher-order thinking (analyze, evaluate, construct arguments). For 100-level survey courses like HIS-131 and HIS-132, objectives are calibrated to introductory college expectations. The portfolio project progressively builds toward synthesis and evaluation, appropriate for the course level while still challenging students to move beyond recall. | Course Map Bloom’s Alignment; Teaching Plan Scaffolding Notes |
| General Standard 3: Assessment & Measurement | |||
| 3.1 | Assessments measure the stated learning objectives | The HQCDP framework uses a direct alignment matrix that maps every assessment to specific module learning objectives and course learning objectives. Each module contains four assessment types (Learning Activities, Discussion Board, Quiz, and Portfolio Checkpoint) that collectively address all MLOs. The Course Map includes an explicit alignment table showing which assessments measure which objectives, ensuring no objective goes unmeasured and no assessment exists without a clear purpose. | Course Map Alignment Matrix; Teaching Plan Assessment Mapping |
| 3.2 | The course grading policy is clearly stated | The grading policy is presented in the Start Here module and syllabus, with a detailed breakdown of point values for each assessment category: Learning Activities, Discussion Boards, Quizzes, Portfolio Checkpoints, Midterm Exam, and Final Exam. The total course points (1,680) and the contribution of each category are made explicit. The Teaching Plan includes the complete grading scale and explains how the 49/51 auto-graded to instructor-graded ratio was designed to balance efficiency with meaningful feedback. | Start Here Module; Syllabus Grading Section; Teaching Plan Grading Policy |
| 3.3 | Specific and descriptive criteria are provided for evaluation of student work | Every instructor-graded assignment in the HQCDP framework includes a detailed rubric. Discussion boards use a four-criteria rubric (content accuracy, critical thinking, peer engagement, writing quality) with clear performance descriptors at each level. Portfolio checkpoints include analytic rubrics that assess thesis development, evidence use, and historical reasoning. All rubrics are published in Canvas and linked directly to assignments so students can review criteria before submitting work. | Teaching Plan Rubrics; Course Map Assessment Criteria; Canvas Rubric Attachments |
| 3.5 | Assessments are sequenced, varied, and suited to the level of the course | The four-phase learning cycle (Learn, Practice, Apply, Assess) creates a natural progression within each module from content acquisition through application to demonstration. Assessment types vary across the spectrum: auto-graded key term activities and quizzes test foundational knowledge, discussion boards require analysis and peer interaction, and portfolio checkpoints demand synthesis and argumentation. This variety addresses different learning styles and Bloom’s levels while building toward cumulative midterm and final exams. | Course Map Module Structure; Teaching Plan Four-Phase Model; Assessment Sequence Chart |
| General Standard 4: Instructional Materials | |||
| 4.1 | Instructional materials contribute to the achievement of learning objectives | All instructional materials in the HQCDP framework are selected and organized to directly support module learning objectives. Each module’s “Learn” phase includes curated OER readings, primary source documents, and multimedia resources that are explicitly mapped to that module’s objectives. The Course Map documents the rationale for each material selection, ensuring that every reading and resource serves a clear pedagogical purpose rather than being included for coverage alone. | Course Map Materials List; Teaching Plan Instructional Content; Module Learn Phase |
| 4.2 | The purpose of instructional materials and how they are used is clearly explained | Each module includes an introductory page that explains what students will read or view and why those materials matter for the module’s learning objectives. The Teaching Plan provides faculty with student-facing instructions that contextualize each resource (e.g., “Read Chapter 3 to understand the economic causes of colonial resistance, which you will analyze in this week’s discussion”). This framing helps students engage purposefully rather than passively consuming content. | Teaching Plan Module Instructions; Canvas Module Introduction Pages; Course Map Rationale |
| 4.3 | Instructional materials are current | The HQCDP framework relies on Open Educational Resources that are continuously maintained and updated by the academic community. OER textbooks like OpenStax are regularly revised, and the framework’s modular design allows individual resources to be swapped without disrupting the overall course architecture. The Course Map flags each resource with its publication or last-updated date, and the Teaching Plan includes a review cycle recommendation for keeping materials current. | Course Map OER Citations; Teaching Plan Resource Review Schedule |
| General Standard 5: Learning Activities & Learner Interaction | |||
| 5.1 | Learning activities promote the achievement of stated learning objectives | Every learning activity in the HQCDP framework is mapped to specific module learning objectives through the alignment matrix. The “Practice” phase activities (key terms, identifications, timelines) reinforce foundational knowledge, while the “Apply” phase activities (discussions, portfolio work) push students toward analysis and synthesis. This intentional design ensures that activities are not busywork but serve as structured steps toward demonstrating objective mastery. | Course Map Alignment Matrix; Teaching Plan Activity Descriptions; Module Practice & Apply Phases |
| 5.2 | Learning activities foster instructor-learner, learner-content, and learner-learner interaction | The HQCDP framework builds all three interaction types into every module. Learner-content interaction occurs through OER readings, primary sources, and learning activities. Learner-learner interaction is facilitated through structured discussion boards requiring peer responses. Instructor-learner interaction is embedded through discussion facilitation, portfolio checkpoint feedback, announcement communications, and gradebook comments. The framework’s 48+ RSI touchpoints ensure that interaction is substantive and ongoing, not episodic. | Course Map Interaction Plan; Teaching Plan RSI Documentation; Discussion Board Guidelines |
| 5.4 | Requirements for learner interaction are clearly stated | Each discussion board includes explicit instructions for initial posts (minimum word count, required evidence citation, analytical depth) and peer responses (minimum number of replies, substantive engagement criteria). The Start Here module establishes baseline interaction expectations, and each module’s instructions reinforce specific requirements. Rubrics make interaction quality criteria transparent, so students know exactly what constitutes meaningful participation versus surface-level posts. | Teaching Plan Discussion Instructions; Start Here Module Participation Policy; Discussion Board Rubrics |
| General Standard 6: Course Technology | |||
| 6.1 | Tools used in the course support learning objectives | The HQCDP framework uses Canvas LMS as the sole technology platform, leveraging its native tools (Quizzes, Discussions, Assignments, Gradebook, Announcements, SpeedGrader) to support each phase of the learning cycle. No external publisher platforms or third-party tools are required. Each Canvas tool is selected because it directly supports a specific interaction or assessment type aligned with learning objectives. The Teaching Plan documents which Canvas feature supports which course function. | Teaching Plan Technology Integration; Course Map Tool Mapping; Start Here Module |
| 6.3 | Technologies used in the course are current and accessible | Canvas LMS is a widely adopted, regularly updated platform that meets WCAG 2.1 accessibility standards. By limiting the technology stack to Canvas and OER web resources, the HQCDP framework minimizes compatibility issues and ensures that all tools are maintained by professional development teams. OER materials are accessed through standard web browsers, and all embedded content is tested for accessibility. The framework avoids Flash, proprietary plugins, or outdated technologies. | Start Here Module Technology Requirements; Teaching Plan Accessibility Notes |
| General Standard 7: Learner Support | |||
| 7.1 | Technical support information is provided | The Start Here module includes links to the institution’s IT help desk, Canvas student guides, and a FAQ section for common technical issues. The Teaching Plan provides faculty with template language for directing students to technical support resources. Because the HQCDP framework uses only Canvas-native tools and OER web resources, most technical issues can be resolved through standard Canvas support channels, and the framework includes troubleshooting tips for the most common student questions. | Start Here Module Support Section; Teaching Plan Technical Support Template |
| 7.2 | Accessibility support information is provided | The Start Here module includes a dedicated accessibility statement with links to the institution’s disability services office, accommodations request process, and Canvas accessibility features. The Teaching Plan includes guidance for faculty on providing accommodations within the HQCDP framework, including extended time on quizzes, alternative formats for learning activities, and accessible discussion participation options. The framework’s OER materials are selected in part for their accessibility features. | Start Here Module Accessibility Statement; Teaching Plan Accommodations Guide |
| General Standard 8: Accessibility & Usability | |||
| 8.1 | Course navigation is logical, consistent, and efficient | The HQCDP framework enforces a uniform module structure across all eight modules: every module follows the same four-phase sequence (Learn, Practice, Apply, Assess) with consistent naming conventions, page layouts, and navigation paths. Students learn the pattern once in Module 1 and can navigate every subsequent module intuitively. The Canvas course menu is standardized with the same navigation items across all HQCDP courses, and module prerequisite settings guide students through content in the intended sequence. | Course Map Module Structure; Teaching Plan Canvas Setup Guide; Model Course Structure |
| 8.2 | Course design facilitates readability and minimizes distractions | The HQCDP framework uses a clean, consistent visual design within Canvas, with standardized headings, clear typography, and intentional use of white space. Content pages follow a predictable template with the module title, objectives, instructions, and resources presented in a consistent order. The Teaching Plan includes formatting guidelines for faculty, and the framework avoids cluttered pages, excessive colors, or decorative elements that could distract from learning. All content follows plain-language principles appropriate for the course level. | Teaching Plan Formatting Guide; Model Course Structure Design Principles; Canvas Page Templates |
RSI Compliance
Regular and Substantive Interaction (RSI) is a federal requirement under 34 CFR § 600.2 that distinguishes distance education from correspondence courses. Institutions must demonstrate that online courses include predictable, scheduled, faculty-initiated interactions that are academically substantive — not merely administrative. Failure to meet RSI requirements can jeopardize institutional accreditation and Title IV financial aid eligibility.
The HQCDP framework was designed to exceed RSI requirements by embedding interaction into the structural DNA of every module. Rather than treating RSI as a compliance checkbox, the framework builds substantive faculty-student interactions into the four-phase learning cycle, creating a predictable rhythm of engagement that benefits both students and instructors.
48+ RSI Touchpoints Per Course
8
Discussion Boards
Instructor-facilitated discussions with required faculty posts, guided questions, and substantive feedback on student analyses across all eight modules.
8
Quiz/Exam Feedback Cycles
Eight quizzes plus midterm and final exams with auto-generated feedback on incorrect answers and instructor review of performance patterns per module.
4
Portfolio Checkpoint Reviews
Four portfolio submissions with individualized written instructor feedback on thesis development, evidence use, and historical argumentation skills.
16+
Learning Activity Feedback Points
Two or more graded learning activities per module with targeted feedback through SpeedGrader comments, addressing content accuracy and skill development.
8+
Announcement/Check-in Communications
Weekly instructor announcements that preview upcoming content, summarize class performance, highlight strong student work, and address common misconceptions.
Ongoing
Gradebook Feedback
Continuous gradebook updates with assignment-level comments, running score visibility, and early-alert outreach to students falling behind pace.
The HQCDP framework provides 48+ documented RSI touchpoints per course, exceeding the federal minimum requirement by approximately 10 times. Every touchpoint is instructor-initiated, academically substantive, and built into the course structure — not dependent on ad hoc faculty effort.
AI Integration for Course Design
Quality Matters has published recommendations for AI integration in course design. The HQCDP framework aligns with these recommendations by treating AI as a design accelerator that enhances human expertise rather than replacing it.
The framework acknowledges that AI tools can assist with drafting learning objectives, generating quiz item banks, scaffolding discussion prompts, and structuring content outlines. However, every AI-assisted element in the HQCDP workflow undergoes rigorous human review by an instructional designer and/or subject matter expert before inclusion in the course.
- Maintaining transparency about AI-assisted design processes — The HQCDP documentation identifies where AI tools were used in the design workflow and how outputs were validated, ensuring institutional stakeholders have full visibility into the design process.
- Ensuring human review of all AI-generated content — No AI-generated content enters a course without expert review for accuracy, alignment with learning objectives, cultural sensitivity, and accessibility. The instructional designer and faculty SME serve as quality gatekeepers.
- Using AI as a design accelerator, not a replacement for pedagogical expertise — AI tools speed up initial drafting of assessment items, activity instructions, and alignment documentation, but all pedagogical decisions — sequencing, scaffolding, objective-setting, and assessment design — remain in human hands.
- Aligning AI use with accessibility and equity principles — AI-assisted content is held to the same accessibility standards as all other course materials, including plain-language readability, screen-reader compatibility, and cultural responsiveness.
The HQCDP has published a detailed Professional Position Statement and FAQ documenting how AI augmentation was used in this program, with full QM alignment evidence.