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 H10

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

Quality assurance issues were considered of importance, especially in relation to the development of networked learning materials. Four out of the five respondents commented on this and explained the changes that had taken place in relation to the monitoring procedure.

… one of the things that we wanted to ensure from the outset was that there would be no possible risk to the quality of the learning experience… So we looked at the nature of the quality processes that we felt should be in place for networked learning, as opposed to traditional delivery, and we’ve added a number of layers of quality assurance to the traditional process. (H10I4)

This need for change was echoed by another respondent who elaborated on the changes implemented.

The role of our quality assurance has changed…We’ve got different stages now… we had a subcommittee of our teaching and learning committee made-up of subject experts and we also involved external experts to look at the content, to make sure it was correct, that it was appropriate level, that the assessments were appropriate etc... that’s one stage… and [although] we have devolved quality at the university we have decided… that anything to do with e-learning at this present stage, should [be examined] through our main quality assurance committee and so again they bring in experts, although that is more difficult because there aren’t a great number of experts… So we’ve built in two extra phases of quality assurance. (H10I3)

A further respondent noted how this process had created changes for academics.

… once they have written the course [it] gets internally peer reviewed and externally peer reviewed… something that academics are not used to in terms of their teaching material… (H10I5)

It was also noted by another interviewee that not only were there changes in terms of development of materials but the way that the student experience could be monitored had changed.

… I mean the traditional model of quality assurance… is that you look at the inputs and the outputs and you don’t pay so much attention to the bit that goes in the middle… Inputs and outputs are still important of course but now with e-learning it is much more important for us to look at the bit that goes into the middle… the student learning experience… partly because it is…on the web it is very visible, partly because it is new and we are finding a way of how to do it, and partly because that’s the bit that students are expecting to get far more out of… (H10I1/6)

This suggests considerable changes to the quality monitoring process and an increasing recognition that student expectations may be changing.

Questionnaire data

Three of the respondents were asked questions in relation to quality procedures and all three agreed that there had been major changes in these procedures. These responses support the interview data.

Summary

The quality monitoring procedures were seen as having undergone substantial change due to the introduction of networked learning. The process had been extended to incorporate greater scrutiny of learning materials and there was also recognition that students’ expectations were of increasing importance.