Quality models and standards in education

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



This article should summarize approaches used to evaluate educational systems or parts of educational system or aspects of educational systems such as technology-enhanced learning.

According to Ebba Ossiannilsson, “Quality in TEL, can be discussed and measured from a vareity of perspectives and approaches. First, quality has to be considered at different levels, i.e. meso,- miso,- and macro level. Second, there are a huge variety of stakeholders whohave an interest in quality. Third, there are different approaches, as normbased versus processbased quality assurance and /or quality enhancement. Fourth, the maturity level has to be taken into consideration. Fifth, and last, or maybe even as a first issue: quality is always time, context, and culture dependent, and quality is always in the eyes of the beholder” (retrieved, May 7 2019).

Quality, in education, can be analyzed at three levels according to Ebba Ossiannilsson:

  • The macro level refers to the entire institution, not only its strategy and mission but also its infrastructure, allocation of resources (costs and time), incentives, and support for students and staff.
  • The meso level refers to the department or faculty and includes the same elements as the macro level
  • The micro level refers to course offerings, such as curricula, course structure and design, assessment, learning outcomes, and method of delivery.

Evaluation grids

10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning (USA)

  1. Student Eligibility
    • All students are digital learners.
  2. Student Access
    • All students have access to high quality digital learning.
  3. Personalized Learning
    • All students can use digital learning to customize their education.
  4. Advancement
    • All students progress based on demonstrated competency.
  5. Quality Content
    • Digital content and courses are high quality.
  6. Quality Instruction
    • Digital instruction is high quality.
  7. Quality Choices
    • All students have access to multiple high quality digital providers.
  8. Assessment and Accountability
    • Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content and instruction.
  9. Funding
    • Funding creates incentives for performance, options and innovation.
  10. Delivery
    • Infrastructure supports digital learning.

- 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning, and 2012 Digital Learning Report Card, retrieved 14:16, 27 March 2013 (CET).



Introduction/use of ICT

  • 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning Quote: “was released at the 2010 Excellence in Action National Summit on Education Reform in Washington, DC. During the fall of 2010, the Digital Learning Council defined the elements and identified the actions that need to be taken by lawmakers and policymakers to foster a high-quality, customized education for all students. This includes technology-enhanced learning in traditional schools, online and virtual learning, and blended learning that combines online and onsite learning.”

References and bibliography

Osiannilsson Bibliography (focus on online program evaluation)

This bibliography on "Quality models in online and open education around the globe" was reproduced from Ossiannilsson et al. 2015 [1]

It is available under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license, i.e. you must cite the above reference

  • Bacsich P (2006) The relevance of the MIT90s framework to benchmarking e-learning. MIT90s-survey-published 15th Sept 2006.
  • Barefoot H, Gamble M, O’Hare D, Kuit J, Mellar H, Newland B , Papaefthimiou M; Martin Oliver; Webb E (2011) A Toolkit for Harnessing Quality Assurance Processes for Technology-enhanced Learning. QAE.
  • Camilleri A F, Ehlers U & Pawlowski J (2014) State of the art review of quality issues related to Open Educational Resources (OER). JRC Scientific and policy reports. Institute for Prospective technological Studies (IPTS).
  • Camilleri A F & Tannhäuser A C (2013) Assessment and Recognition of Open Learning. In Openness and Education (Vol. 1). Emerald Group.
  • CHEA (CHEA International quality group) (January 2014) Higher Education outside Colleges and Universities: How do we measure quality? Policy brief number 2. Washington: CHEA International quality group.
  • Dahl Jörgensen M, Kristensen S, Wipf A & Delplace S (2014) Quality tools for professional education review and improvement. PHExcel Consortium
  • Daniel Sir J (1996) Mega Universities and Knowledge Media. Technology strategies for Higher Education. Routledge.
  • Devedzic V, Scpanovic S & Kraljevski (2011) E-learning benchmarking. Methodology and tools review. Report 1.3. DL@Web. Tempus project. URI: http://www.dlweb.kg.ac.rs/
  • European Commission (2Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the Quality of Learning : The SOLO

Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.014) The European Union’s High level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. New modes of learning and teaching in universities.

  • Ehlers U D (2013) A Guide to quality, evaluation and assessment for future learning. New York: Springer.
  • Frydenberg J (2002) Quality standards in e-learning: A matrix of analyses. The International Review Research in Open and Distance Learning 3(2).
  • Gaebel M, Kupriyanova V, Morais R & Colucci W (2014) E-learning in European Higher Education institutions. Results of a mapping survey conducted in October-December 2013. Brussels: European University Association (EUA).
  • Hegde G & Ponmudiraj BBiggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the Quality of Learning : The SOLO

Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press. (Ed) (2013) Guidelines for the Creation of the internal quality assurance cell (IQAC) and submission of annual quality assurance report (AQAR) in accredited institutions. National assessment and accreditation council. Nagarbhavi, Bangalore: AQAAR.

  • ICDE Strategic plan 2013.2016. URI: www.icde.org
  • Lifewide Learning & Education in Universities and Colleges, Edited by Norman Jackson N & Jenny Willis J (Eds) (2014) Lifewide Learning & Education in Universities and College. URI: http://www.learninglives.co.uk/
  • James R, Tynan B, Marshall, Webster L, Suddaby G & Lewis R (2011) Regulatory framework for distance education: A pilot study in the Southwest Pacific/south East Asia region. Final report. December 2011. ICDE.
  • Jaschik S & Ledeman D (Eds 2014) Survey of faculty attitudes on technology. A study by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed. Washington: Gallup and Inside higher ed.
  • Jung I, Meng Wong & Belawati T (2013) Quality assurance in distance education and e-learning. Challenges and solutions from Asia. Los Angeles: SAGE.
  • Kawachi (2014) Quality assurance guidelines for Open Educational Resources: TIPS Framework. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia, New Delhi.
  • Op de Beek I, Camilleri A F & Bijnes M (2012) Research results on European and international e-learning quality, certification and benchmarking schemes and methodologies. VISCED project. background documentation and project research results. Brussels: EFQUEL. The Open Education Handbook, LinkedUp. URI: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3v5eAZeR0ERWmo1aDdRVWtNUkU/view
  • Ossiannilsson E (2012) Benchmarking e-learning in Higher Education: lessons learned from international projects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu, Finland. URI: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9789526200415/isbn9789526200415.pdf
  • Punie Y (2104) Report and recommendations Foresights on Open Education 2030. European Commission Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  • Rama K, Hope A (Ed) & Coomaraswamy U (Co- ed) (2009) Quality assurance toolkit for distance Higher Education institutions and programmes. Trust, access, innovation, cost-effective, faculty satisfaction, learning effectiveness, continuous improvement, excellence, leadership. Commonwealth of learning. Vancouver: Commonwealth of learning.
  • Rosewell J (January 2004) OpenupEd label, quality benchmarks for MOOCs. Heerlen: EADTU.
  • Rosewell J & Jansen D (2014) The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs. Volume 2, No 3, 2014 and Special Issue on Quality in Massive Open Online Courses. INNOQUAL – International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning. URI: http://papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/160
  • Rodrigo C, Read T, Santamaria M, & Sánchez-Elvira A (2014) OpenupEd Label for MOOCs quality assurance: UNED COMA initial self-evaluation. Proceedings of V Congreso Internacional sobre Calidad y Accesibilidad en la Formación Virtual (CAFVIR 2014) L. Bengoechea, R. Hernández, & J. R. Hilera (Eds.), Universidad Galileo (Guatemala), pp. 551 – 555 ISBN: 978-9929-40-497-7.

The Arab Organisation for Quality Assurance in Education (AROQA) – The Digital Education Initiative Holds the Founding Meeting of the Digital Education Accreditation Taskforce. URI: http://aroqa.org/article/25716/The-Digital-Education-Initiative-Holds-the-Founding-Meeting-of-the-Digital-Education-Accreditation-Taskforce

Other (mostly focus on learning evaluation and quality of learning interactions)

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the Quality of Learning : The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.
  • Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment : Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher

education, 2(2), 87‑105.

  • Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming Higher Education. ERIC.
  • Krange, I., Fjuk, A., Larsen, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2002). Describing Construction of Knowledge through Identification of Collaboration Patterns in 3D Learning. Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 Boulder, Colorado, USA January 7-11, 2002, 82.
  • Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63‑86.
  • Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56‑77.
  • Peggy, N., & Mike, O. (2012). Achieving Quality Learning in Higher Education. Routledge.
  • Quilter, S., & Weber, R. K. (2004). Quality Assurance for Online Teaching in Higher Education : Considering and Identifying Best Practice for E-Learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(2), 64‑73.
  • Sorensen, E. K., & Takle, E. S. (2001). Collaborative Knowledge Building in Web-Based Learning : Assessing the Quality of Dialogue. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED466217

Cited references

  1. Ossiannilsson, Ebba; Williams, Keith; Camilleri, Anthony F.; Brown, Mark: Quality models in online and open education around the globe. State of the art and recommendations. Oslo : International Council for Open and Distance Education 2015, 52 S. - URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-108795