A Conceptual Model for Effective Quality Management of Online and Blended Learning

Institutions considering online and blended learning (OBL) face the challenge of strategically adopting OBL to develop, implement, monitor, assess and improve the quality of programmes and courses. The principles of continuous quality improvement (CQI) allow this challenge to be addressed. Effective CQI management implies that quality assurance and quality improvement follow and inform each other as part of a continuous cycle. Scholars report however, that quality management of OBL usually focuses on assurance. The purpose of this paper is to provide a state of the art approach for effective CQI management which allows practitioners to achieve coherence between quality assurance and improvement of OBL. In this conceptual paper we link and integrate work across fields to address the challenge of achieving coherence between quality assurance and improvement. We discuss research in the context of CQI that uncovers features of OBL that prevent practitioners from achieving coherence. The conceptual model for effective CQI of OBL integrates data based decision-making. The conceptual model provides a foundation for research on the effectiveness of this CQI management approach in the context of OBL. The quality management approach supports practitioners during the entire CQI-cycle to foster dialogue and consultation between all stakeholders in the institution in order to strategically develop assess and improve the quality of OBL programmes and courses. The originality of the model lies in making explicit data-based decision making as a driver for effective CQI management in the context of OBL.

[1]  Russell Cropanzano,et al.  Writing Nonempirical Articles for Journal of Management: General Thoughts and Suggestions , 2009 .

[2]  I. Jung.  The dimensions of e-learning quality: from the learner’s perspective , 2011 .

[3]  Jan Vanhoof,et al.  Data use by teachers: the impact of motivation, decision-making style, supportive relationships and reflective capacity , 2016 .

[4]  K. Schildkamp,et al.  Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. , 2010 .

[5]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research , 2014 .

[6]  U. Ehlers.  Quality in e-Learning from a Learner’s Perspective , 2004, Distances et médiations des savoirs.

[7]  C. Dziuban,et al.  Blended learning: A dangerous idea? , 2013, Internet High. Educ..

[8]  Chang Zhu,et al.  Validation of a Conceptual Quality Framework for Online and Blended Learning with Success Factors and Indicators in Adult Education: A Qualitative Study. , 2017 .

[9]  Carol Mutch,et al.  Complementary Evaluation: The Development of a Conceptual Framework to Integrate External and Internal Evaluation in the New Zealand School Context , 2012 .

[10]  Janet C. Moore,et al.  The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework And The Five Pillars , 2005 .

[11]  Kim Schildkamp,et al.  Data-based decision making : an overview , 2013 .

[12]  Mark J. W. Lee,et al.  The Three P's of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. , 2008 .

[13]  Alistair Inglis,et al.  Approaches to the validation of quality frameworks for e‐learning , 2008 .

[14]  T. Anderson,et al.  Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. , 2010 .

[15]  Insung Jung,et al.  Asian Learners' Perception of Quality in Distance Education and Gender Differences. , 2012 .

[16]  Jon Dron,et al.  Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy , 2020 .

[17]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Design-Based Research and Educational Technology: Rethinking Technology and the Research Agenda , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[18]  M'hammed Abdous,et al.  E-Learning Quality Assurance: A Process-Oriented Lifecycle Model. , 2009 .

[19]  Zane L. Berge,et al.  The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator , 2003 .

[20]  Cindy Louise Poortman,et al.  De datateam® methode: Een concrete aanpak voor onderwijsverbetering , 2014 .

[21]  K. Schildkamp,et al.  Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools , 2014 .

[22]  James Owen Drife,et al.  Student feedback , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Maureen,et al.  Analysing Quality Audits in Higher Education , 2004 .

[24]  Harvey Mellar,et al.  Factors affecting quality enhancement procedures for e-learning courses , 2009 .

[25]  Joke Voogt,et al.  E-learning course design in teacher design teams: experiences in the Open University of Tanzania , 2009, Int. J. Learn. Technol..

[26]  Lee Harvey,et al.  Impact evaluation of quality assurance in higher education: methodology and causal designs , 2015 .

[27]  Bram De Wever,et al.  Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review , 2017 .

[28]  Chang Zhu,et al.  Investigating the relationship between success factors and student participation in online and blended learning in adult education , 2019, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  Ulf-Daniel Ehlers,et al.  Quality Literacy - Competencies for Quality Development in Education and e-Learning , 2007, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[30]  Teuku Yuri M. Zagloel,et al.  Investigating Relationships among Quality Dimensions in Higher Education. , 2012 .

[31]  K. Squire,et al.  Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground , 2004 .

[32]  Jan Herrington,et al.  Design-based research and doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal , 2007 .

[33]  Keith Williams,et al.  Quality Assessment for E-learning: a Benchmarking Approach (2nd ed.) , 2012 .

[34]  Stephen Marshall,et al.  A Quality Framework for Continuous Improvement of E-learning: The E-learning Maturity Model , 2010 .

[35]  A. P. Rovai.  In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs , 2003, Internet High. Educ..

[36]  Kristy Bloxham,et al.  Using formative student feedback: A continuous quality improvement approach for online course development , 2010 .

[37]  Bert P. M. Creemers,et al.  Using the Dynamic Model to develop an evidence-based and theory-driven approach to school improvement , 2010 .

[38]  Jan Vanhoof,et al.  Instruments for school self-evaluation: lost in translation? A study on respondents’ cognitive processing , 2017 .

[39]  Henrik Hansson,et al.  E-learning quality. Aspects and criteria for evaluation of e-learning in higher education , 2008 .

[40]  John F. Dalrymple,et al.  Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher education , 2003 .

[41]  Ebba Ossiannilsson,et al.  Quality in e-learning - a conceptual framework based on experiences from three international benchmarking projects , 2012, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[42]  J. Williams,et al.  Quality assurance and quality enhancement: is there a relationship? , 2016 .

[43]  Nicolae Nistor,et al.  From participation to dropout: Quantitative participation patterns in online university courses , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[44]  W. Edwards Deming,et al.  Elementary principles of the statistical control of quality : a series of lectures , 1952 .

[45]  Kim Schildkamp,et al.  Data-based decision making in education: challenges and opportunities , 2013 .

[46]  WHERE DO WE STAND,et al.  E-learning in Tertiary Education , 2005 .

[47]  Paul Ginns,et al.  Early impact and outcomes of an institutionally aligned, student focused learning perspective on teaching quality assurance1 , 2005 .

[48]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Design research from a technology perspective , 2006 .

[49]  Mark Brown,et al.  Quality models in online and open education around the globe. State of the art and recommendations , 2015 .

[50]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[51]  Harvey Mellar,et al.  Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of student feedback , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[52]  Lee Harvey,et al.  Student Feedback [1] , 2003 .

[53]  John F. Dalrymple,et al.  Developing a Holistic Model for Quality in Higher Education , 2002 .