Delivering quality higher education through e­learning: a

conceptual view
Abel Usoro and Abbas Abid

Both academic and non­
academic   institutions
such   as   businesses   have
increasingly   been
interested   in   the   use   of
information   and
communication
technologies   (ICT)   to
support   learning
otherwise   termed   e­
learning.    This   interest
has   been   fuelled   by   the
new   developments   in
ICT   such   as   multimedia
and the Internet  with its
world wide web.   Other
incentives have been the
associated   (expected)
reduction   of   cost   of
education  and  the  easier
expansion   of   education
to the  increasing   market
that cannot be reached by
traditional   delivery.
Especially   with   higher
education (HE), the issue
of   quality   is   raised
leading to both anecdotal
and   empirical   evidence
of   ways   to   maintain
quality   while   deriving
the   benefits   of   e­
learning.     This   paper
aims to discuss the issue
of   quality   in   higher
education   and   examine
how it can be maintained
in online learning.  It will
present   key   current
research   as   well   as
highlight   possible   areas
for future studies.
INTRODUCTION
It is not yet possible to be
conclusive   on   what
constitutes   quality   in   e­
learning   because   it   is
only in the 1990s that the
expansion in information
and   communications
technologies,   especially
the   Internet,   has
motivated   explosion   of
research   and   practice   in
this field.  Indeed, growth
in technology has run at a
faster pace than research
and full understanding of
what should be quality in
e­learning.    Thus,   the
International   Standards
Organisation (ISO) is yet
to   finalise   framework
standards   for   quality   e­
learning.     Given   this
background,   this   paper
attempts   to   explore   the
concept   of   quality   in   e­
learning   by   reviewing
literature   in   higher
education and e­learning.
Based   on   this   desk
research,   an   attempt   is
made to identify common
themes and to summarise
what may be regarded as
quality   criteria   in   e­
learning and pointers are
made for areas for further
investigation.
OPERATIONAL
DEFINITIONS
Quality   in   Higher institutions   are   not   pure
Education business   organisations   that
are   swiftly   changing   with
the   environment,   there   has
The   change   factors
been some paradigm shift in
described   by   Green
(1994)   below   have the   concept   of   higher
fuelled   the   current education   (Pond,   2002)   as
interest in quality of HE indicated in Table 1.
in developed countries:
Old Paradigm N
 rapid   expansion Teacher/institution centered L
of   student Centralised L
numbers   in   the Homogenous D
One size fit all T
face   of   public
Closed O
expenditure
Us versus them C
worries; 
Prescriptive F
 the   general
Time as constant/learning as  L
mission for better variable v
public services;  Teacher credentials T
 increasing Consolidated experience A
competition Regional/national I
within   the Static D
educational Single delivery model D
Process O
“market”   for
Infrastructure S
resources   and
students; and
 tension   between Table 1­ Old and new
efficiency   and concepts for Accreditation
quality. and Quality Assurance
Source: Adapted from
Interest in quality higher Pond (2002)
education   is   expressed
not   only   in   developed As   Ellis  et   al  (2007)   have
economies,   like   the   UK, stated,   quality   for   higher
but also in less developed education is a vexed term as
ones.  For instance (Idrus, it may suggest the notion of
1999)   discusses   efforts accountability   at   the
towards achieving quality expense   of   improvements.
higher   education   in Yet,   quality   has   to   be
Indonesia. conceptualised   in   order   to
improve   it.     Higher
Granted   that   educational
education   belongs   to quality is in the eye of the
Theoretical knowledge, qualifications follow   up   of
the service rather than Practical knowledge
beholder.     They   argued students,   profile   of
the   manufacturing Up to date that   interests   of teachers, etc);
industry   which   has Teaching expertise, communication
stakeholders   vary   with  Connection   of   the
3 Attitude Understanding students’ needs
more precise measures the   quality   dimensions. programme   to
Willingness to help
for   quality.     This   has For   instance,   while business,
Availability for guidance and advice
not   discouraged content and reliability are
Giving personal attention
governmental   and
attempts   at of   interest   to   students,
Emotion, courtesy other   stakeholder
conceptualising   and 4 Content staff   and   employers,
Relevance of curriculum to the future groups;
even   measuring   this tangibles and competence
jobs of students  Replicability   of   the
concept   in   higher Effectivenessare   not   of   interest   to programme   –
education   (cf Containing primary knowledge/skills
employers;   and   attitude whether   it  could be
Ashworth and Harvey, Completeness, use of computer
and   delivery   are   of implemented
1994;   Harvey  et   al, Communication skills and 
interest to students only. elsewhere   in   the
teamworking
1992).     Owlia   and world;
Flexibility of knowledge, being cross­
Aspinwall   (1996) The   rest   of   this   section  Visibility   of   the
disciplinary
studied   earlier will   present   a   few programme,   in
5 Delivery Effective presentation
attempts   and   also additional   studies   and
Sequencing, timeliness particular   in   the
quality   frameworks   in Consistencyquality   standards   which media.
other   disciplines   such can   be   seen   to   support
Fairness of examinations
as   software Owlia   and   Aspinwall’s
Feedback from students The   recognition   of   the
engineering   which dimensions.
Encouraging students increasing   globalisation   of
they argued are akin to 6 Reliability trustworthiness higher education is reflected
higher   education. The   International in   some   of   the   ISO   items
From   their   study   they Table 2 ­ Quality Standards   Organisation such   as   number   of
produced a conceptual dimensions in higher (ISO) (2007) has defined nationalities of students and
framework that groups education by Owlia and their   HE   quality   criteria the   ability   to   implement   a
30   attributes   into   the Aspinwall (1996) as: course   in   more   than   one
six   dimensions   of place   in   the   world.     Like
tangibles,  competence, Owlia   and   Aspinwall’s  Content   and Owlia   and   Aspinwall,   ISO
attitude,   content, (1996)   research   appears pedagogical standards   accept   that   there
delivery and reliability to   be   the   most method; are a number of stakeholders
(see Table 2). comprehensive  Achievements whose   views   have   to   be
dimensioning   study   of and impact of the countenanced   to   have   a
No Dimensions quality   of   higher
Characteristics programme holistic   measure   of   quality.
1 Tangibles education.   Other studies
Sufficient equipment/facilities demonstrated   by However,   investigating
appear   to   confirm,
Modern equipment/facilities performance quality   education   from   the
complement   all   or   some
Ease of access indicators students’   perspective   is
quality   dimensions   of
Visually appealing environment (number   of increasingly   becoming
Support services (accommodation, 
Owlia   and   Aspinwall’s students,   number popular   by   both   higher
sports, …)
research.       Their   study of   nationalities, education   institutions   and
2 Competence Sufficient (academic) staff
also   recognises   that assessment   and external   stakeholders

3
including   the   quality
authorities   (HEFCE,
2002;   QAA,   2002).
We   will   now   look   at
two of such studies.
Hill and Lomas (2003)
is   one   set   of
researchers   that
examine   quality   from
students’   perspective.
They   found   the   most
influential   quality
factors in the provision
of higher education to
be   the   quality   of   the
lecturer   and   the
student   support
systems   (Hill   and
Lomas,   2003).     Their
research   was   carried
out   on   nursing,
management   studies,
and   learning   and
teaching students.  The
main   question   they
asked was “What does
quality   education
mean to you”?   Other
factors   that   emerged
from   Hill   and   Lomas
(2003)   research   are
social/emotional
support   systems,   and
resources   of   library
and IT.
Concentrating   on   the
two   most   prominent
factors,   quality   of   the
lecturer   requires   the
lecturer   to   know
his/her   subject,   be   well
organised and interesting
to   listen   to   by   being
positive and enthusiastic.
These   requirements
pertain to the delivery in
the   classroom.     The
relationship with students
in the classroom adds to
the quality of the lecturer.
The   relationship
appreciated   by   the
students   has   to   be   easy
and   helpful   for   learning.
Anderson   (2000)   agrees
with   the   importance   the
quality   of   the   lecturer.
Large class sizes and the
increasing   use   of   e­
learning   and   resource­
based learning are feared
to   affect   the   required
stimulating   and
enthusiastic   environment
between the lecturer and
the   students   (Gibbs,
2001).     These   fears
necessitate   quality
assurance   in   e­learning
environments.
Lagrosen   and   Seyyed­
Hashemi   (2004)   are
another   group   of
researchers   who
investigated quality from
students’   perspective.
After   reviewing   earlier
studies   of   quality   in
higher   education,   they
used   interview   and
questionnaire   to   study
448   Austrian   and increasing
Swedish   students   and commercialisation of higher
their   study   revealed   as education   and   increasing
significant   the   following competition has made a few
factors: institutions   to   lower   or
entirely   remove   the   needed
 Courses offered entry qualifications with the
 Computer results that weaker “inputs”
facilities –   students   –   are   used   with
 Information   and the aim of providing quality
responsiveness “outputs” – graduates.   This
 Collaboration has   the   great   potential   of
and comparison weakening quality education
(Wilson,   2007).     The
Students’   perspective   is existence of such weakening
of   course   an   important effect   places   great
piece   of   the   jigsaw   but responsibility   on   increasing
not   the   whole   picture. the   quality   (and   perhaps
Otherwise,   we   would quantity)   of   the   student
miss   quality   research support system.
which   should   underpin
HE.  Thus, it is necessary No Owlia and  International
to   have   academic   and Aspinwall  Standard
(1996) Organisation
other stakeholders’ views
(2007)
to   achieve   a
1 Tangibles
comprehensive   measure
of   quality.     Moreover,   a 2 Competence Profile of 
factor   that   is   most   often teachers
ignored   given   the 3 Attitude Follow­up of 
students
regulatory   and
competitive  demands   is
the   quality   of   the
students.    Though
achievement   of   entry
4 Content Content and 
qualifications,   eg   The pedagogical 
Graduate   Management method
Admission   Test® 5 Delivery Assessment 
(GMAT),   have   been and follow­up 
of students
proven   to   positively
6 Reliability
correlate   with  success   in
completion   of   education
programmes,   the
4
7 Globalisation training,   education   and
in terms of  collaboration   using
number of 
various   electronic   media
nationalities of
students and but   predominantly   the
Internet which tools have
replicability of
programme constituted   the   main
driver   of   e­learning
Table 3 –
(Kramer, 2000).   If well
Approximate
designed and managed e­
mapping of various learning   can   overcome
HE quality many   barriers   associated
frameworks with   traditional   learning
which   include   students’
Though   it   is   a   few tardiness,   schedule
years   since   the   study conflicts,   unavailable
was   carried   out,   parts courses,   geographical
of   Owlia   and isolation,   demographic
Aspinwall’s   (1996) and   economic
framework   maps   to disadvantage   (Hijazi,
subsequent studies and 2004).
views   (or   the   reverse)
on   quality   of   higher What is E­learning
education as shown in
Table 3. The   “e”   in   e­learning
stands   for   “electronic”
We   will   see   that   the and   just   like   similar
quality   dimensions   of terms,   for   instance   e­
HE   will   appear   in business,   stand   for
difference   guises   in computer   mediated
various   e­learning activities,   e­learning
research   that   will   be refers to learning with the
presented below. use   of   communication
and   information
E­learning technologies.    This
agrees with the definition
Since   the   late   1990s, by the Higher Education
there   has   been Funding   Council   of
tremendous interest on England (HEFCE, 2005):
e­learning   both   by “any   learning   that   uses
practitioners   and ICT”   (p   5).     Although
academics.   E­learning this   definition   is   broad
is   used   to   deliver enough   to   cover   non­
online, eg CD, media, the
internet has so dominated
the actual implementation
of e­learning that authors
such   as   Gunasekaran  et
al  (2002)   simply   define
e­learning   as   “Internet­
enabled learning”.   If we
take   the   broad   sense   e­
learning, which is the use
of   ICT   to   support
students   in   achieving
their learning outcomes, a
mixed   strategy   that
combines   the   traditional
approach   to   learning   is
accommodated   (Ellis  et
al, 2007).   Thus, we can
observe   many
universities   with  face­to­
face   contact   with
students, using e­learning
tools   like   Blackboard   to
make   learning   materials
available to students and
to   coordinate   their
learning activities.  In the
UK,   most   of   the
successful   e­learning
programmes   are   the
blended   rather   than   the
pure   (no   face­to­face
contact)   approach.
Ennew   and   Fernandez­
Young   (2006)   report   on
the failure of the flagship
UK e­University (UKeU)
project   pointing   out   the
need not to underestimate
demand   analysis   in   any
major e­learning venture.
The argument as to whether
e­learning   is   superior   to
face­to­face   learning   is   not
settled   but   e­learning   has
entered   the   centre   stage   in
today’s   delivery   of   training
and   education   whether   in
industry   or   in   educational
institutions.     Players   in   the
e­learning   field   are   varied
and   include   content
providers,   technology
vendors   and   service
providers,   and   they   target
academic,   corporate   and
consumer   markets.
Department   of   Labour
projected   an   increase   from
US$550 million to US$11.4
billion   in   corporate   e­
learning   revenues;   and   this
increase   represents   83%
compound   annual   growth
rate   (Gunasekaran,   McNeil
and Shaul, 2002).
Pros and Cons of e­learning
A number  of  reasons  make
e­learning   appealing   to
educational   and   non­
educational   institutions   as
well as learners.   The wide
acceptance   and   availability
of   the   internet   means   e­
learning  eliminates   learning
barriers   of   time,   distance,
socio­economic status while
at   the   same   time   allowing
individuals   to   take   more
responsibility   for   their
learning   which   can   now
5
become   life­long.
Students   can   have
access   and   benefit
from   a   variety   of
experts   and   resources
that   may   not   be
available locally.   The
fact that materials and
delivery can easily and
very   economically   be
replicated   is   a   strong
appeal   to   higher
education which seeks
lower costs in the face
of   increased   learning
demands   (Alexander,
2001;   Antonucci   and
Cronin,   2001,
Gunasekaran  et   al,
2002,   Hijazi,   2004;
Osborne   and   Oberski,
2004).     E­learning
mode   of   educational
and   training   delivery
along   with   its
collaborative tools can
transform   a   non­
learning   organisation
into   a   learning   one
which   is   a   very
desirable   attribute
especially   in   the
current   global
environment.     A
learning   organisation
has   the   additional
advantage   of   boosting
staff   morale   and
motivation   (Tarr,
1998).
There is also a change
in the way books are now
published   in   the   internet
age.     Authors   provide
plenty   of   electronic
materials   which   include
extra examples, problems
and   solutions,   animated
simulations,   user   group
and   feedback   system,
bank   of   test   and   exam
questions   with   solutions,
tools   to   compose   exam
and   texts,   and   provision
for   lecturers   to   design
their   courses   and
customise   material   to
their students.   Lecturers
also   appreciate   other
tools   that   allow   them   to
manage   their   students
and   their   learning
experience.  The fact that
these are all available on
the   internet   also   means
that lecturers have easier
access   to   a   variety   of
publications   with   the
associated   support
materials as explained in
this paragraph.
Research evidence exists
of   the   advantages   of   e­
learning   in   terms   of
giving teachers access to
more resources, being an
effective   way   to
implement   national
curriculum   and
instruction standards, and
producing   better
performed   learners   than
the   traditional   approach
(Larson   and   Bruning,
1996; McCollum, 1997)
This   rosy   picture   does
not,   at   least   at   the
moment,   eliminate
challenges   of   motivating
lecturers   and   students   to
take   up   e­learning.     Nor
does   it   remove   the
challenges   of   achieving
high  quality learning  by,
for   instance,   providing
high stimulation learning
experience.     Indeed,
Alexander and McKenzie
(1998)   reported   the
following   as   reasons   for
e­learning failure:
 Overly ambitious
desired outcomes
given   the   budget
and   time
constraints;
 Use   of
technologies with
disregard   to
appropriate
learning design;
 Failure to change
learning
assessment   to
match   changed
learning
outcomes;
 Software
development
without   adequate
planning; and  cent   higher   than
 Failure   to   obtain
copyright clearance.
Other   problems   with   e­
learning are:
 Initial   costs   may
exceed   costs   of
traditional methods
 More   responsibility
is   placed   on   the
learner   who   has   to
be   self­disciplined
especially   in   the
pure   e­learning
mode where there is
no   face­to­face
interaction
 Some   learners   have
no   access   to
computer and/or the
internet   or   the
technology they use
may be inadequate 
 Increased   workload
(Connolly   and
Stansfield, 2007)
 Non­involvement   in
virtual   communities
may   lead   to
loneliness, low self­
esteem,   isolation,
and   low   motivation
to   learn,   and
consequently   low
achievements   and
dropout   (Rovai,
2002)
 Dropout   rates   tend
to   be   10   to   20   per
traditional   face­to­
6
 face
programmes
(Carr, 2000)
These   problems   bring
the issue of quality in
e­learning to the fore.
Quality in E­learning
We   cannot   begin   to
think about the quality
of   e­learning,   if   we
cannot firstly convince
a significant number of
academic staff  to take
up the new technology
in   the   first   place.
Despite   the   potentials
of   e­learning,   a
number of studies have
identified   lecturers’
attitude as a barrier to
the   acceptance   of   e­
learning   (Pajo   and
Wallace, 2001; Sellani
and   Harrington,   2002;
Newton, 2003).   From
an   analysis   of   earlier
work   in   this   area,
followed   by   empirical
study,   Newton   (2003)
identified   the
following   barriers
associated   with
lecturers:
1. Increased time
commitment
(workload)
o Develop and   Fernandez­Young, The rest of this section will
ment 2006, p 150). present   some   existing
time research and initiatives.
o Delivery At   the   same   time,
time effective   quality The   International   Standards
2. Lack   of strategies,   initiatives   and Organisation   (ISO)   from
incentives   or tools   are   very   important early   2006   is   developing   a
rewards to   convincing   lecturers framework   for   standards   to
3. Lack of strategic and other stakeholders to reduce   the   cost   and
planning   and adopt   e­learning complexity   of   adopting
vision (Gunasekaran   and quality   e­learning
4. Lack of support McNeil, 2002).   Friesner approaches and, at the same
o Training (2004) has reported of the time,   to   facilitate   the
in threat   of   plagiarism   and introduction   of   new   e­
technolo poor academic practice to learning   products   and
gical e­learning   extension   in services   (Training   Press
develop higher   education Releases   2006).     The
ments irrespective   of   country. framework will introduce:
o Support  The   need   to   overcome
for  this   threat   has   to   be  Quality   model   to
pedagogi recognised   in   a   sound harmonise   aspects
cal  framework for quality e­ of   quality   systems
aspects  learning   in   HE.     Such and   their
of  confidence   would   go   a relationships.
develop long   way   towards  Reference   methods
ments building,   in   the and   metrics   to
5. Philosophical, stakeholders,   confidence harmonise   methods
epistemological in e­learning. used to manage and
and   social ensure   quality   in
objections Much   research   interest different contexts.
has   developed   and   there  Best   practice   and
These   issues   have   to   be are   a   few   initiatives implementation
sorted   out   to   allow   the towards   developing   a guide   to   harmonise
free   flow   of   quality   e­ sound   framework   for   e­ criteria   for
learning.     Besides learning   quality.     The identification of best
lecturers,   some   potential proposals   of   existing practice,   guidelines
students   and   employers research   and   initiatives for   adaptation,
are cautious of, and many can   be   approximately implementation   and
national   governments mapped   into   the   HE usage   of   multi­
refuse   to   give   full quality   dimensions pronged   standard.
recognition   to   e­learning already discussed (for the The  guide  will   also
qualifications   (Ennew mapping   see   Table   2).
7
 contain   best needs   and  Good   facilitation with   non   electronic
practice preferences   for of interaction and activities.
examples. description   of feedback; and 2. Are   the   objectives,
events   and  The   application goals   and
Targeting places of   specific assessment   methods
individualised Part 7: Description of standards   for clear   and
adaptability   and events   and evaluation. compatible   with   e­
accessibility   in   e­ places learning format?
learning,   education Part   8:   Language The   key   issues   so   far 3. What   remedial
and   training,   the accessibility seem   to   be   the action will you take
International   Standard and   human technology   including to   care   for   non­
Organisation   (ISO, interface easy   access,   course performers   in   a
2007) is also currently1 equivalencies content   as   evidenced   in timely fashion?
developing   the (HIEs)   in   e­ good course development 4. How will mentoring
following   8­part   e­ learning and design, delivery, and and   guidance   be
learning framework: applications good   support   system. carried out?
We   will   observe   these 5. Beyond   course
Part   1:   Framework The   benchmarks issues repeated in the rest completion,   what
and reference provided   by   the   US of presented literature. will   be   the   success
model Institute (Gunasekaran et criteria?
Part 2: “Access for al, 2002, 48) for ensuring While acknowledging the
all”   personal e­learning   quality   and existence of useful tools, The framework proposed by
needs   and evaluating   higher like   Blackboard,   for   e­ Boticario   and   Gaudioso
preferences education   effectiveness learning,   Webb   (2000) (2000) is:
Part 3: “Access for and policy include: considers   the   following
all”   digital non­technical   issues   in 1. Developing   an
resource  A   documented developing   his   on­line interactive   and
description technology   plan learning course: online   resource
Part 4: “Access for that   includes model   while
all”   non­ password 1. Will   the   course considers   lecturers,
digital protection, be   able   to   stand students,   tutors   and
resource encryption, back­ alone   as   a   valid other stakeholders at
description up   systems   and learning various levels;
Part   5:   Personal reliable delivery; experience   for 2. Developing
needs   and  Established the   different significant   and
preferences standards   for student   profiles active   learning   by
for   non­ course that   will   be stimulating   student
digital development, exposed to it?   It participation   in   the
resources design   and may be necessary various   learning
Part   6:   Personal delivery; to   supplement resources;
3. Providing
1  As at May 2007
individualised

8
 communicatio research interactive and simulation for   both   staff   and
n   to   learners opportunities requirements.     The students
who   are   also  Equally   rigorous differences   are   well  Market   research
given assessment   as   in recognised   in support; and
individualised campus­based Gunasekaran  et   al’s  Provision   of   time
and   quick learning (2002)   proposal   of   e­ release   for   faculty
access;  Academic learning   application members engaged in
4. Develop   a counselling   and shown in Table 4. e­learning
“community advice developments.
of   practice”  Handling   of Alexander   (2001)   in   his Zhao   (2003)   summarised
with capability plagiarism, contribution existing   quality   of   e­
for   knowledge authentication complements   existing learning   research   into   his
sharing   and and   online work   by   tackling proposed   framework   which
collaboration academic strategic   issues   and has   the   following
among misconduct. putting   policies   in   place components:
learners.  Such to   faculty   members
development In   his   contribution, involved   in   e­learning.  Course
may   go Thomas   (1997)   proposes His   proposals   can   be   so effectiveness
beyond   the the   following   key summarised:  Adequacy of access
formal elements: in   terms   of
learning   to  Development   of technological
provision   of 1. Provision   of a   vision   of   e­ infrastructure
informal learning learning;  Student satisfaction
facilities like a materials;  Development   of
“chat room”; 2. Provision   of a   technology The   components   of   quality
facilities   for development in e­learning that have been
To   provide   adequate practical   work plan; presented   overlap   each
support   for   students (eg simulation);  Development   of other.     Appendix   is
the   following   issues 3. Enabling faculty   workload proposed by this paper as an
should   be   addressed questions   and policies   which amalgamation   of   the   key
(Newton,   2003,   p discussions; takes   into research and initiatives into
420): 4. Assessment; consideration   the quality of e­learning.
5. Provision   of demands   of   e­
 Advance student   support learning; Learning  Internet applications
course services  Maintenance of a Areas
Arts Online classes for arts 
requirements (advising) reliable
classes such as language
information technology improving vocabulary a
 Close personal While,   there   may   exist network; writing skills
interaction general   frameworks   for  Provision   of Business Business courses on 
 Equivalent quality  e­learning,   it   has facility   for Internet, group projects,
virtual company tours
library to  be  acknowledged  that technical   support
Engineering Engineering classes on 
materials   and courses differ and in their online, virtual laborator

9
 virtual design, team are   the   objectives   (eg development   of   e­ higher   educational
learning and group projects
quick   development   of learning vision, strategies institutions   to   achieve   high
Science Virtual laboratory, design of
strategies   in   reactions   to and plans. quality   in   e­learning.
experiments, collaborative 
projects one’s   environment)   of Nonetheless, future research
Medicine learning   (Gee,   2004).
Simulation of surgical  It has to be borne in mind will   empirically   test   these
operations, diagnosis, cat 
Thus,   some   research that   the   varied factors.
room
effort   is   directed   at   the perspectives   (from
Agriculture Treatment of crops from 
application   of   computer
time to time, training and 
students,   academics, Areas for further research
education using WWW games in e­learning.   An employers   and   other
Law and  example is Connolly and
Practice of law online,  stakeholders)   on   the The   research   initiated   by
justice communication, simulation 
Stansfield (2007). quality   dimensions   have this   paper   is   obviously
games
to   be   countenanced   to work­in­progress.     The
Summary   and arrive   at   comprehensive mapping   of   the   quality
Table 4 ­ proposal of
conclusions measure of quality.  dimensions   need   to   be
e­learning application
validated   and   refined   by
One   of   the   major primary research so that an
The student experience There   are   overlaps   in
concerns of quality is the empirically   tested
with e­learning may be existing   research   and
challenge   of   making framework can be presented
different   from   the initiatives   towards
computer   assisted for   introduction   and
traditional face to face conceptualising   and
learning   to   be   as management of e­learning in
delivery   (Ennew   and dimensioning   quality   in
stimulating   as   the higher education.
Fernandez­Young, higher   education  as   well
traditional   face­to­face
2006,   p   150)   which as   in   e­learning.
mode   of   learning.     This There   is   also   another
causes   fears   of   less Drawing from secondary
concern   has   motivated interesting   area   for   further
student   stimulation study   and   using   HE
the   use   of   simulated investigation:   while   e­
with   e­learning. quality   framework   by
computer   environments learning   promises   to   safe
However,   there   is   no Owlia   and   Aspinwall
such   as   provided   by time   (because   of   the
relenting   in   effort   to (1996)   as   the   base,   this
computer   games   and technological   ease   of
animate   and   introduce paper   attempts   to
research   is   still   in replication,   access   to
interactivity   in   e­ summaries   the   HE
progress   on   how   best   to learning   materials   and
learning:   scripting quality   components   into
improve   the   situation. communication)   increased
languages   like   Java tangibles,   competence,
There   are   also   key workload   has   been
and   programming content,   delivery,
strategic   and   policy identified   as   the   negative
paradigms  like second reliability   and
issues of motivating staff effect   of   taking   up   e­
life (Cross, 2007) have globalisation.     The
and giving them both the learning.    Does   e­learning
been used.  Also, it has components   have   been
technical and pedagogical save   or   take   time   off   the
been observed that the used   as   a   basis   to   map
support   to   undertake   e­ lecturer?     Are   there
skills   developed   when research  into  dimensions
learning. intervening   factors,   like
playing   computer of   e­learning   quality.
games are useful for e­ Extra components are (1) phase   in   development,   e­
It is proposed that paying learning   skills   and
learning   and   in   some creation   of   communities
adequate   attention   to experience   of   lecturer   that
cases   the   same   skills of   practice,   and   (2)
these   factors   would   help decides   whether   e­learning

10
saves   or   consumes
time?

11
 Appendix

Dimensions of e­learning quality in higher education

E­Learning quality dimensions
US Institute 
HE quality  Boticario and 
No benchmark  Webb  Newton (2003,  Thomas 
dimensions ISO (2007) Zhao (2003) Guadioso  Alexander (2001)
(Gunasekaran et (2000) p 420) (1997)
(2000)
al, 2002, p 48)
1 Tangibles Access Password  Equivalent Adequacy   of Interactive Technology 
protection,  library   and access   in   terms development
encryption and  research of   technological Technology 
other technical  opportunities infrastructure network
issues
2 Competence Technical support
3 Attitude Interaction   and Learner’s  Communication  Support Student Technical   support
feedback experience of requirements satisfaction to students
Timely  Close personal 
remedial  interaction
action for  Counselling and
non­ advice
performers
Mentoring 
and 
guidance
4 Content Course Learner’s Effectiveness
development   and experience
design
5 Delivery Course delivery Facilities for  Student 
practical work  participation
(eg  Individualised 
simulation) communication 
Enabling  and quick 
questions and  access
 discussions
6 Reliability Evaluation Success Equally rigorous Assessment Market research
standards criteria assessment as in
campus­based 
learning; 
Handling of 
plagiarism, 
authentication 
and online 
academic 
misconduct
7 Globalisation Globalisation  Customise 
eg language  overall 
accessibility format for 
on­line 
delivery
8 Creating  Enabling  Community of 
communities of  questions and  practice – 
practice discussions formal and 
informal eg 
“chat room”
9 Developing e­ Vision, strategies, 
learning vision,  policies (eg 
strategies and  workload and 
plans time­release) and 
plans

13
References:
Alexander, S and McKenzie, J (1998)  An evaluation
of   information   technology   projects   in
university   learning,   Department   of
Employment,   Education   and   Training     and
Youth   Affairs,   Canberra:   Australian
Government Publishing Services.
Antonucci, R V and Cronin, J M (2001) “Crating an
online   university”  The   Journal   of   Academic
Librarianship Vol 27 No 1, pp 20­3.
Ashworth,   A   and   Harvey,   R   C   (1994)  Assessing
Quality   in   Further   and   Higher   Education
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Alexander,   S   (2001)   “E­learning   developments   and
experiences” in Education and Training Vol 43
Nos 4 and 5, pp 240­8.
Anderson, L (2000) “Teaching development in higher
education   as   scholarly   practice:   a   reply   to
Rowland   et   al.   turning   academics   into
teachers”,  Teaching in Higher Education, Vol
5 No 1, pp 23­31.
Boticario, J G and Gaudioso, E (2000) “Adaptive Web
site   for   distance   learning”   in  Campus­Wide
Information Systems Vol 17, No 4, pp 120­8.
Carr, S (2000) “As distance education comes of age,
the   challenge   in   keeping   students”   in
Chronicle of Higher Education Vol 46, No 13,
pp A39­A41.
Connolly,   T   M   and   Stansfield,   M   (2007)   “From   e­
learning   to   games­based   e­learning:   using
interactive   technologies   in   teaching   on   IS
course” in International Journal of Information
Technology and Management Vol 6, Nos 2, 3
and 4, pp 188­207.
Cross,   J;   O’Driscoll,   T;   and   Trondsen,   E   (2007)
“Another   life:   virtual   worlds   as   tools   for
learning” in eLearn Magazine Vol 2007, Issue
3, p 2.
Ellis,   RA;   Jarkey,   N;   Mahony,   M   J;   Peat,   M   and
Sheely,   S   (2007)  Quality   Assurance   in
Education Vol 15, No 1, pp 9­23.
Ennew,   C   T   and   Fernandez­Young,   A   (2006)
“Weapons   of   mass   instruction?   The   rhetoric
and   reality   of   online   learning”   in  Marketing
Intelligence   and   Planning  Vol   24,   No   2,   pp
148­57.
Gee, J P (2004)  What Video Games Have To Teach
Us  About Learning  and Literacy  Hampshire:
McMillan.
Gibbs,   P   (2001)   “Higher   education   as   a   market:   a
problem   or   solution”  Studies   in   Higher
Education No 1, pp 85­94.
Green D., (1994) “What is quality in higher 
education?” in  Concepts, policy and practice 
Buckingham: Open University Press, pp 3­20. 
Gunasekaran,  A;  McNeil,   C R  and Shaul,  D  (2002)
“E­learning:   research   and   applications”   in
Industrial   and   Commercial   Training  Vol   34,
No 2, pp 44­53.
Hart,   M   (2004)   “Plagiarism   and   poor   academic
practice   –   a   threat   to   the   extension   of   e­
learning   in   higher   education?”   in  Electronic
Journal   of   e­Learning  Vol   2,   Issue   2,
December, Paper 25.
Harvey, L, Burrows, A, and Green, D (1992) Criteria
of   Quality:   Summary  Birmingham:   The
University of Central England.
Higher   Education   Funding   Council   for   English
(HEFCE) (2002)  Information on Quality and
Standards in Higher Education (02/15) Bristol:
HEFCE.
Higher   Education   Funding   Council   for   English
(HEFCE)   (2005)  HEFCE   Strategy   for   e­
Learning London: JISC, HEA.
Hijazi,   S   (2004)   “Interactive   technology   impact   on
quality   distance   education”   in  Electronic
Journal   of   e­Learning  Vol   2,   Issue   2,
December, paper 5.
Hill, Y and Lomas, L (2003) “Students’ perceptions of
quality   in   higher   education”   in  Quality
Assurance in Education  Vol 11, No 1, pp 15­
20.
Indrus, N (1999) “Towards quality higher education in
Indonesia” in  Quality Assurance in Education
Vol 3, No 3, pp 134­141.
ISO (2007) ISO/IEC FDIS 24751 
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CombinedQueryRes
ult.CombinedQueryResult?queryString=e­
learning (accessed on 16 May 2007).
Kramer,   B   J   (2000)   “Forming   a   federated   virtual
university through course broker middleware”
in Proceedings: LearnTec 2000 Heidelberg.
Lagrosen,   S   and   Seyyed­Hashemi,   R   (2004)
“Examination of the dimensions of quality in
higher   education”   in  Quality   Assurance   in
Education Vol 12, No 2, 2004, pp 61­69.
Larson,   M   R   and   Bruning,   R   (1996)   “Participant
perceptions   of   a   collaborative   satellite­based
mathematics  course”   in  American   Journal  of
Distance Education Vol 10, No 1, pp 6­22.
McCollum, K (1997) “A professor divides his class in
 two   to   test   value   of   online   instruction”   in
Chronicle of Higher Education Vol 43, No 24,
p A23.
Newton, R (2003) “Staff attitude to the development
and   delivery   of   e­learning”   in  New   Library
World Vol 104, No 1193­2003, pp 412­25.
Osborne,   M   and   Oberski,   I   (2004)   “University
continuing   education   –   the   role   of
communications and information technology”
in Journal of European Industrial Training Vol
28, No 5, pp 414­28.
Owlia, M S and Aspinwall, E M (1996) “A framework
for   the   dimensions   of   quality   in   higher
education” in  Quality Assurance in Education
Vol 4, No 2, pp 12­20.
Quality   Assurance   Agency   (QAA)   (2002),  QAA
External Review Process for Higher Education
in   England:   Operation   Description   (03/02),
QAA, Gloucester.
Pajo, K and Wallace, C (2001) “Barriers to the update
of   Web   based   technology   by   university
teachers” in Journal of Distance Education Vol
16, No 1, pp 70­84.
Pond W. K., (2002) “Distributed Education in the 21 st
century:   Implication   for   quality   assurance”
Online   Journal   of   Distance   Learning
Administration,   Vol.5,   No.11.   Available   at:
www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer52/p
ond52.html (accessed on 11 May 2007).
Rovai, A P (2002) “Building sense of community at a
distance” in International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, April, ISSN:
1492­3831.
Sellani,   R   J   and   Harrington,   W   (2002)   “Addressing
administror/faculty   conflict   in   an   academic
online   environment”   in  Internet   and   Higher
Education Vol 5, pp 131­45.
Tarr, M (1998) “Distance learning – bringing out the
best”   in  Industrial   and   Commercial   Training
Vol 30, No 3, pp 104­6.
Thomas,   P   (1997)   “Teaching   over   the   Internet,   the
future”  Computing   and   Control   Engineering
Journal Vol 8, No 3, pp 136­42.
Training   Press   Releases   (2006)   “ISO/IEC   standard
benchmarks   quality   of   e­learning”
http://www.trainingpressreleases.com/newssto
ry.asp?NewsID=1767  (accessed   on   16   May
2007).
Webb, J P (2000) “Technology: a tool for the learning
environment”   in  Campus­Wide   Information
Systems Vol 18, No 2, pp 73­8.
Wilson,   D   A   (2007)   “Tomorrow,   tomorrow   and
tomorrow:   the   ‘silent’   pillar”   in  Journal   of
Management Development  Vol 26, No 1, pp
84­86.
Zhao,   F   (2003)   “Enhancing   the   quality   of   online
higher   education   through   measurement”   in
Quality Assurance in Education  Vol 11, No
4, pp 214­221.