Home

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Context

3 Methodology

4 - 9 Findings, Analysis and Discussion

10 Summary of Findings

11 Discussion of Findings

12 References

13 Case Studies

Acknowledgments & Partners

Case Study Map 

Institution H4

9 Impact of networked learning on quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation

The questionnaire responses indicate that there are some planned changes in quality assurance procedures but at present the changes are probably minor. This view was supported by one respondent in interview who spoke about the plans for future changes in quality assurance of e learning courses.

But in terms of complete courses by e learning, we have had various discussions about how we would quality assure the students [experience]. It does seem to me that one of the key things is to ensure that we have some means of getting some feedback from the students. Now this is still a matter for discussion and indeed it is something that [the university] plans to audit in the next year or so, so we will actually be looking at it in some detail. (H4I6)

The quality of the infrastructure has been addressed by standardising the technology. The questionnaires responses suggest that there have been major changes in both hardware and software to allow interoperability and integration of systems to create an effective MLE. The questionnaire responses were supported by the views of one respondent in interview.

So the whole structure of online delivery has been developed in a standardised way that has been worked on through working groups and committees…we have an annual review of our common standards [where] we indicate publicly, on the web, to the university community, what software we support, what hardware we support. In that context we have to make sure we support what is required to underpin the [VLE]. (H4I5)

According to the questionnaire responses, monitoring and evaluation of staff take up and experiences of networked learning appear to occur on a regular basis but so far only some initial evaluations have been made of the students experiences. In interviews staff evaluations were not mentioned but one respondent confirmed the position in respect of student evaluations.

If the students say as part of the feedback that they are not happy with the standard of material because it is badly presented, not the content [which] is a separate issue, but the presentation of it, the clarity of it, the ability to access it, those are things [the university] would like to hear about from the students … I think what we are interested in is the student perception of that. … We haven’t really achieved that as yet. As I said, we’ve had some discussions about it and partly because we are still looking at our own internal student feedback systems and actually allied some of those better, producing an overall coherent strategy for student feedback, I think all universities are in the same position [and] there is a lot of pressure nationally to improve the student feedback arrangements. (H4I6)

Standards and quality appear to be important at this university, which has planned a staged approach: materials and staff development were regarded as first priority, with student monitoring and evaluation coming along later.

We are trying to develop the quality of our programmes and set the standards, not just within the university but also across the entire sector and I think we are actually doing that from the feedback we are getting from our people. But to do that we’ve had to recognise that you need a division of labour, that most academics can’t produce all singing, all dancing material to go on the web,[especially] if it is going to be exposed to a world wide audience. So, we have created a central unit that has learning technologists, it’s got web designers, graphic artists, they work with faculty to create the material. That means then that we are creating very, very high quality material, we are setting very high standards and again that is percolating down into that [student experience]. (H4I4)

Summary

There have been some minor changes in quality assurance procedures, but there are plans for future changes to ensure the quality of e learning courses. Technology has been standardised and there have been major changes in both hardware and software to enable integration of systems. Monitoring and evaluation of staff take up and experiences appear to occur on a regular basis but so far only some initial evaluations have been made of student experiences although future developments are planned.