Appendix 3: A Student Survey on Critical Factors of Quality Assurance in Online and Distance Learning

• 
• 

Appendix 3: A Student Survey on Critical Factors of Quality Assurance in Online and Distance Learning

 

Chen Li, Bai Bin, Xu Yang, Shen XinYi
Beijing Normal University, China

 

Abstract:
Most of the quality assurance (QA) criteria developed in various settings are mainly concerns of the Online and Distance Learning institutions, instructors, assessors and funding bodies. To promoting the quality in Online and Distance Learning, it is critical to understand learners’ views since learning outcome relies to a greater extent on learners’ motivation and engagement. This research mainly focus on the factors which are more important than others in assuring the quality of Online and Distance Learning from the perspective of China learners and differences in learners’ perception of the quality according to age groups, learning methods, and learning experience. What’s more, we compare the difference between learners and teachers. An online survey was developed to gather empirical evidence about a set of 59 items in the ten dimensions of QA in Online and Distance Learning. 653 learners who were enrolled in three institutions in mainland China and 91 teachers including senior managers, instructors and tutors from eight institutions in mainland China were surveyed. We hope the findings from this survey will supply valuable references for developing QA framework for China. Readers can get deep understanding QA situation in China.

 

Keyword： Quality assurance，Student Survey, Critical Factors, ODL

Background
Since China kicked off the ICT-supported distance education pilot project in 1999, online education had achieved remarkable development in China. However, as a newborn thing, modern distance education had some problems and challenges naturally. Among the last twelve years for the pilot project, the government, the society (the third party) and the school all had made a lot of efforts to build the quality assurance system of distance education. The Ministry of Education had gradually carried out more than 100 policy documents about the approval and management, recruitment and employment, certificates and electronic registration, examination, annual inspection, assessment and teaching standards for online education college, public service system and learning center, etc, and had established an information-based platform and mechanism for quality control of online education. The distance education providers had actively formulated appropriate rules and regulations in all aspects of distance education, such as student management, teacher management, test management and other aspects, to ensure that online education is rule-based, and to achieve the scientific, standardized management of online education. Some distance education providers even took attempt to introduce the ISO9000 to make the quality management of distance education normative.

 

Although the government and distance education providers had attempted to improve the quality, the current situation was still not satisfactory. Generally speaking, besides objective factors, we should put more emphasis on the area that government, society and provider was working on .For instance, there was not any national quality standard, any third party, any unified quality values and quality management. In a word, we concluded that the quality assurance system of distance education in China had not been formed.

 

Many other countries like United State, Britain, Malaysia, Australia and the European region had issued relevant quality standards documents. The United States and Australia's distance education had its specific quality standard system. American Distance Education and Training Council issued Distance education institutions accreditation manual and Institute for Higher Education Policy in USA released online education quality standard, while Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning was non-governmental organization and aimed to provide with policy and practice guidance of open, remote, flexible and digital learning. The quality management organization of Britain and Malaysia belonged to national ministry of education, and their distance education quality standards and the traditional university quality standard was unified.

Two major production procedures are applied in developing the quality standards in these countries. One is up-down model and the government takes the same evaluation framework on the assessment of the quality of DE/e-learning as well as that of traditional education. The other is third party model, which means the standard framework is developed by the third party with wide range of applications. Nonetheless, no matter which procedure is applied, the existing quality standards are mainly based on the perspective of the managers. Learners are core stakeholders in distance education, which indicates their views should be crucial in drafting the quality standard. There had been a few studies which examined learners’ views of the quality of distance education.

 

Cashion and Palmieri (2002) investigated Australian learners’ and educators’ views of the quality of online learning in the vocational education and training context. They found that the view of learners was different from view of providers. Flexibility was the most important factor for learners but not for the providers. And learners said they didn’t need initial support to study online which was emphasized by providers. Besides, skill in using technology rated by learners was lower than providers.

 

Chin-Wen Chang（2008） carried out a survey about learners’ view of online learning in Taiwan. They found that students were positive to online learning and they hold the view that course management, communication and feedback, course flexibility, course design are the important factors for online learning.

 

Salvador（2008） selected Master of Engineering in Professional Practice （MEPP） distance education program and Sloan Consortium in University of Wisconsin-Madison as research case. He interviewed the learners with the topic of ‘what are the main characteristic quality online education program’. He found that learners attached great important to the diversity of learners and participation, experienced and responsible professional personnel, project design and flexibility of the structure, the contact level of curriculum content and the practice, advanced technology and technical support. Besides, interaction between teachers and students was the core factor in the quality of online education pregame.

 

Yi Yang（2006）selected three items from American Institute for Higher Education Policy consisted of seven items, that were the process of teaching, course organization, learner support, and formed a questionnaire about the evaluation of online education quality. He found that the main factors were peer interaction level, teachers’ feedback and online course structure.

 

While these studies contribute to our understanding of learners’ perspectives on quality in DE/e-learning, they also point to the fact that there can be some significant differences across different contexts and depending on learner variables such as gender and learning experience. In order to provide useful references to develop QA framework for DE/e-learning in China, we need to identify Chinese learners’ perspective of DE/e-learning quality and understand personal differences in Chinese learners’ perceptions, concerns and experiences which affect their participation in DE/e-learning.

 

The present study aims to provide practical references to the development of QA frameworks for DE/e-Learning by investigating Chinese learners’ perceptions of the quality of DE/e-learning and attending to their differences with teachers in such dimensions.

 

Research Question

In examining Chinese learners’ perspective of the quality of DE/e-learning, specific research questions are formulated as follows:

 

1. Which dimensions are more important than others in assuring the quality of DE/e-learning from the perspective of Chinese learners?
2. Within each dimension, which criteria are more important than others in assuring the quality of DE/e-learning from the perspective of Chinese learners?
3. Are there any differences in learners’ perception of the quality of DE/e-learning according to age groups, learning methods and DE/e-learning experience?
4. Are there any differences between learners and teachers in the perception of the quality of DE/e-learning?

 

Methodology

Participants

653 learners who were enrolled in three different DE/e-learning institutions in China (School of Distance Learning and Continuing Education Beijing Jiaotong University, Online Education of Renmin University of China, Beijing Open University) participated in this study in February 2010 and July 2011 separately. Questionnaires are distributed through mails and online survey. At last, there are 404 valid questionnaires in all. Table 1 shows the demographic features of participant learners.

 

 

In addition, the research team collects 91 teachers’ perspectives with the same QA framework as students’ questionnaires. There are senior managers, instructors and tutors from eight different DE institutions and 77 valid questionnaires are taken into further data analysis.

 

Instruments
An online survey was conducted to gather empirical evidence about a set of 59 items in the ten dimensions of QA in DE/e-learning from a perspective of adult learners in China. The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of importance of the items across ten dimensions so as to identify quality dimensions and criteria as perceived by learners in a DE/e-learning environment. In order to develop a valid and reliable survey questionnaire, the following steps were undertaken.
Sufficient common ground has been found in previous studies to enable the research team to develop an initial list of quality dimensions for use in the study. As a team member of Pandora project-Quality Assurance (QA) Models, Standards and Key Performance Indicators for ICT-supported Distance Education (DE) in Asia，which kicks off in 2009, we carry out similar student survey, draft QA framework for Asian DE/e-learning institutions, and organize several international workshops around QA framework for Asian DE/e-learning institutions. Due to that research experience in Pandora project, we are able to develop the initial list which included 55 items across ten dimensions (Institutional Credibility, Course Development, Information & Publicity, Evaluation & Assessment, Faculty Support, Interactive Tasks, Teaching and Learning, Infrastructure, Internal Quality Assurance System, and Student Support).

 

Following that, around 20 distance learners and 6 experts from four different DE providers and research centers are invited to review the draft. As a result, three were deleted because they were redundant, nine were revised for terminology clarification, and seven new items were added to reflect diverse DE/e-learning situations in China. In all, 59 items were included in the final survey.

 

In the survey questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate each item’s importance in assessing and assuring the ‘QUALITY’ of DE/e-learning (1 being lowest 5 being highest).

 

Data analysis
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was carried out with AMOS 18.0 to answer the research questions 1,2 and 4. Independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA and post hoc, multiple comparisons were carried out to answer the question 3.

 

DE/e-learning quality dimensions
It appeared that all ten dimensions were important in assuring the quality of DE/e-learning from the perspective of Chinese learners and teachers. In students’ questionnaires, factor loadings ranged from .656 (Institutional credibility) to .911 (Teaching and learning). Teachers’ questionnaires’ results about these ten dimensions is a bit different from students’. Table 2 has detailed information about the difference between students and teachers.
Table 2 Comparison of the importance of ten dimensions between students and teachers

 

Order	Students N=404（Factor loading）	Teachers N=77（Factor loading）
1	Teaching and learning（.911）	Infrastructure（.952）
2	Student support（.907）	Information and publicity（.932）
3	Evaluation and assessment（.883）	Evaluation and assessment（.877）
4	Interactive tasks（.855）	Faculty support（.822）
5	Course development（.849）	Interactive tasks（.822）
6	Faculty support（.848）	Course development（.807）
7	Information and publicity（.837）	Teaching and learning（.779）
8	Infrastructure（.826）	Student support（.750）
9	Internal quality assurance（.816）	Institutional credibility（.657）
10	Institutional credibility（.656）	Internal quality assurance（.649）

 

• The ‘Institutional credibility’ dimension was the poor indicator of DE/e-learning quality perceived by the learners and teachers, which only explained about 36% of the variance in DE/e-learning Quality. The factors labeled ‘Internal quality assurance’, was the poorest dimension in the view of teachers. The commonality of learners and teachers might indicate most DE/e-learning providers have been accredited by relative authorized organizations and it is unnecessary to list institutional credibility as one indicators of DE quality assurance framework.
• From the view of learners, the factors labeled “teaching and learning” are the most influential dimension, explaining 81% of the variance in learners’ perceptions. However, teachers’ datasets revealed that “infrastructure” was the best indicator of DE/e-learning quality. It shows the fundamental difference between learners and teachers. Teachers prefer “infrastructure” to others mainly due to their duty, which requires them to provide basic instruction environment for learners. On the contrary, learners would vote “teaching and learning” as the best indicators of DE quality because their understanding about DE primarily comes from daily instruction activities.

 

Regards to 59 items in those ten dimensions, the results appeared that most items were important in assuring the quality of DE/e-learning from the perspective of Chinese learners and teachers. In students’ questionnaires, factor loadings ranged from .656 (Institutional credibility) to .911 (Teaching and learning). Teachers’ questionnaires’ results about these ten dimensions is a bit different from students’. Table 3 has detailed information about the difference between students and teachers.

 

Table 3 Comparison of the importance of 59 items between students and teachers

Note: Items with * indicates the factor loading is lower than 0.6 which is not a good indicator.
	Items			Factor Loading
				Students N=404	Teachers N=77
Institutional credibility			.656			.657
1		External accreditation at the national level	.604				.400*
2		International accreditation	.549*				.391*
3		Strong leadership	.870				.578*
4		Clear lines of authority in decision making	.856				.703
5		Qualified faculty/staff	.611				.470*
Course development			.849			.807
6		Clear guidelines for course development	.676			.612
7		Inclusion of multimedia components in courses	.668			.621
8		Well structured course materials	.675			.635
9		Inclusion of video-recorded lectures	.639			.358*
10		Course content adaptability to students’ needs	.747			.598*
11		Course content adaptability to students’ levels	.759			.592*
Information and publicity			.837			.932
12		Providing course information (course objectives, assignments, timelines, study requirements, resources, learning outcomes, etc. for each courses)	.778			.774
13		Clear indication of requirements for assignments (due dates, evlautation criteria, etc.)	.747			.793
14		Guidelines about how to finish assignments	.766			.810
15		Easy channels to know own learning progress	.647			.372*
16		Make good use of online platform to inform learners	.646			.328*
Evaluation and assessment			.883			.877
17		Timely feedback to student assignments and questions	.797			.919
18		Fair rubrics for learning assessment	.874			.894
19		Periodic student evaluation of teaching and learning	.780			.748
20		Periodic institutional review of lectures’/tutors’ performance	.750			.681
21		Feedback from graduates	.786			.603
22		Feedback from employers	.722			.464*
Faculty support			.848			.822
23		Continuous assistance for faculty/tutors/staff in course development, delivery and management	.793			.694
24		Periodic training for faculty/tutors/staff	.824			.744
25		Policy and procedures for faculty/tutor/staff selection	.801			.679
26		Faculty/tutor/staff welfare (e.g. financial aid and health care for faculty/tutor/staff)	.558*			.280*
Interactive tasks			.855			.822
27		Inclusion of collaborative learning activities in courses	.801			.614
28		Inclusion of individualized learning activities in courses	.830			.916
29		Inclusion of problem/case-based learning activities in courses	.829			.904
Teaching and learning			.911			.779
30		Student interaction with instructors	.758			.782
31		Student interaction with other students	.800			.726
32		Asynchronous online interaction (discussion boards, emails, etc.)	.769			.740
33		Synchronous interaction (video conferencing, fixed line telephone etc.)	.747			.733
34		Flexibility in learning methods	.752			.543*
35		Flexibility in learning pace	.770			.523*
36		Face-to-face tutorials	.719			.475*
37		Online tutorials	.762			.646
38		Access to online library resources	.742			.664
39		Access to physical library resources	.634			.418*
40		Informal face-to-face meeting with instructors/tutors	.723			.473*
41		Informal face-to-face meeting with other students	.676			.607
42		Instructors’ teaching skills	.482*			.176*
Infrastructure			.826			.952
43		Reliable media/technology infrastructure	.710			.645
44		Reliable learning management systems	.263*			.672
45		Physical classrooms	.520*			.354*
46		Media/technology production facilities	.745			.551*
47		Security of student data system	.643			.625
Internal quality assurance system			.816			.649
48		Existence of quality standards specifically for distance education	.811			.478*
49		Periodic internal evaluation by a distance education institution	.790			.873
50		Periodic evaluation by external experts	.798			.560*
51		Clear guidelines for quality assurance	.782			.800
Student support			.907			.750
52		Providing program/course administration information (admission requirements, tuition fees, technical and assessment requirements, students support services, etc)	.617			.386*
53		Distance learning skills training for students（e.g. how to succeed in DE）	.792			.678
54		Media/technology support for students（e.g. operating 24/7 help desk）	.788			.802
55		Social support for students （e.g. encouragement, interpersonal communication with faculty and tutors）	.798			.713
56		Psychological support for students（e.g. counseling services）	.617			.666
57		Administrative support for students（e.g. enrollment and admission services）	.733			.606
58		An established appeal mechanism	.653			.458*
59		Flexible payment method	.660			.286*

• In the dimension of institutional credibility, learners and teachers both pointed out that international accreditation is least important for DE/e-learning quality. When it comes to the most influential factor, learner list strong leadership as the top while teachers choose clear lines of authorities in the decision making. It might be related to teachers’ own experience. Participant teachers include senior managers, tutors and instructors and their formal participant experience in important decision events remind them the importance of mechanism.

 

• When it comes to the course development, the biggest gap between teachers and students is their evaluation about “inclusion of video-recorded lectures”, which is viewed as crucial for the quality of DE/e-learning by students but as the poorest indicator by teachers. The possible reason might be the widespread of online courses from leading some Open University such as Open University in UK, Athabasca University makes the distance education institutions aware of the benefits and importance of providing reading materials and flash courseware instead of lectures. From the point of Chinese learners, video-recorded lectures could delivery plenty of information that they need to learn and their former learning experience make them rely heavily on teachers’ direct instruction.

 

• In the terms of Information and publicity, the differences between learners and teachers lie in getting information about learning progress and making good use of online platform to inform learners. It indicates learners’ strong need about the information of their own learning progress and their classmates’ learning status, which actually can be taken as one classical learning strategy in face-to-face instruction. Also, it shows the valuable function of platform application. Sadly, the big gap of learners and teachers did exist, which should be taken into further consideration in developing the function of learning management system.

 

• The commonality of learners and teachers in the dimension of faculty support is the necessity of faculty training. Besides, learners and teachers both put great emphasis on the significance of interactive tasks. In the dimension of teaching and learning, the surprising result is that instructors’ teaching skills is perceived as the poorest indicator both by learners and teachers.

 

• In the dimension of Infrastructure, physical classroom is taken as the least influential factor both by learners and teachers. On the other hand, learners select reliable learning management system as the poorest indicator and choose media/technology production facilities as the most significant indicator for the quality of DE/e-learning. However, the teachers hold a total opposite view on these two items.

 

Age group differences in rating DE/e-learning quality dimensions

The participants were grouped in two categories to see age group differences in the learners’ perception of DE/e-learning quality: ‘Younger than 31’ and ‘31 or older’ groups. About 71% belonged to the first group and 29% in the second group. An independent-sample t-test disclosed that there were mean differences between these two groups in rating the dimensions of DE/e-learning quality. Table 4 shows that the older group perceived these 10 dimensions more important in assessing the quality of DE/e-learning than the younger group, which is quiet significant in the dimension of teaching and learning.

 

Table 4 Age Group Differences in Rating DE/e-learning Quality Dimensions

		Younger than 31								31 or older-
DE/e-learning quality		M		SD		n				M		SD		n				df		t Sig.
Credibility	4.24		.7944		286				4.29		.6751		116				648.8		-0.60
Course development	4.12		.755		286				4.27		.651		116				645.12		-1.92
Information & publicity	4.21		.647		286				4.31		.727		116				592.53		-1.29
Evaluation & assessment	4.12		.85		286				4.16		.77		116				633.89		-0.48
Faculty support	4.13		.897		286				4.30		.729		116				660.03		-1.75
Interactive tasks	4.10		.856		286				4.23		.741		116				644.13		-1.44
Infrastructure	4.07		.738		286				4.25		.663		116				635.69		-2.36			*
Teaching & learning	3.98		.784		286				4.31		1.011		116				573.72		-3.56			***
Internal QA system	3.96		.914		286				4.04		.882		116				620.03		-0.89
Student support	4.06		.729		286				4.18		.716		116				616.65		-1.48
* p<.05,*** p<.001

 

Effects of learning methods on rating DE/e-learning quality dimensions

One-way ANOVA revealed that there were differences in learners’ perception of each quality dimensions according to learning methods (see Table 5). A post hoc test using pair-wise comparison with LSD’s method showed that in assessing the quality of DE/e-learning, a group whose main method was ‘interactive online study’ perceived most quality dimensions more important compared with other groups, especially groups using reading textbooks/printed learning materials and broadcast programs. A group using content-based online study felt that ‘Faculty support’, ‘Infrastructure’ , ‘Teaching & learning’ and‘Student support’ were especially important in measuring the quality when compared with groups using reading textbooks/printed learning materials. Students who study online appeared to view ‘Course development’, ‘Infrastructure’, ‘Internal QA system’ and ‘Student support’ as more important dimensions of quality e-learning and list ‘Evaluation and assessment’ as the most important one compared with other students who conventional DE methods such as prints and broadcast programs.

 

Table 5 Effects of Learning Methods on DE/e-learning Quality Dimensions

	Reading textbooks/printed learning materials (1) N=146			Using broadcast programs (2) N=8			Content-based online study (3) N=157		Interactive online study (4) N=124			Face to face tutorials (5) N=64
DE/e-learning quality	M	SD	M		SD	M		SD	M	SD	M		SD	F		Sig.					Post hoc
Credibility	4.22	0.06	4.40		0.26	4.24		0.61	4.42	0.18	4.29		0.09	.723								a)
Course development	4.09	0.06	4.06		0.35	4.19		0.06	4.48	0.18	4.17		0.08	1.633								1>4
Information & publicity	4.13	0.06	4.35		0.17	4.28		0.05	4.57	0.11	4.23		0.07	2.208								3 >1 4>1,3,5
Evaluation & assessment	4.00	0.07	4.08		0.34	4.19		0.06	4.61	0.12	4.14		0.11	2.857				*				a)
Faculty support	4.11	0.07	4.38		0.22	4.26		0.07	4.47	0.15	4.08		0.12	1.579								3, 4>1 4>5
Interactive tasks	4.05	0.07	4.38		0.16	4.23		0.06	4.50	0.18	4.03		0.11	2.670				*				a)
Infrastructure	4.02	0.06	4.17		0.26	4.19		0.06	4.49	0.13	4.13		0.09	2.786				*				4,3>1 4>5
Teaching & learning	3.96	0.06	4.15		0.22	4.17		0.08	4.30	0.20	4.07		0.09	1.816								3>1
Internal QA system	3.94	0.07	4.16		0.22	4.06		0.07	4.39	0.17	3.80		0.14	2.970				*				4>1,5 3>5
Student support	3.98	0.06	4.19		0.31	4.17		0.06	4.62	0.11	4.03		0.10	4.303				***				3,4>1 4>3,5
* p<.05,*** p<.001 Notes. The numbers in parentheses in column heads refer to the numbers used for illustrating significant differences in the "Post hoc" column.Only the significant pairs at 0.05 level or less were presented at the Post hoc column. a) Pair-wise significant differences were not detected by LSD’s post hoc tests.

Effects of DE/e-learning experience on rating DE/e-learning quality dimensions

One-way ANOVA disclosed that DE/e-learning experience affected learners’ perception of several quality dimensions (see Table 6). Dimensions such as ‘Teaching and learning’, ‘Student support’ , ‘Evaluation and assessment’ and ‘Faculty support’ were perceived important regardless learners’ level of DE/e-learning experience. Students with more experience in DE/e-learning viewed some dimensions such as ‘Course development’ and ‘Faculty support’ more important than less experienced learners.

 

Table 6 Effects of Experience in DE/e-learning on DE/e-learning Quality Dimensions

 

Findings

1. Which dimensions are more important than others in assuring the quality of DE/e-learning from the perspective of Chinese learners?

 

As Table 2 shows, ‘teaching and learning ’, ‘student support’ and ‘evaluation and assessment’ were viewed as top three important indicators of the quality of DE/e-learning from the perspective of Chinese learners. In addition, Chinese teachers point out ‘Infrastructure’, ‘Information and publicity’ and ‘Evaluation and assessment’ are the most influential indicators.

 

1. Within each dimension, which criteria are more important than others in assuring the quality of DE/e-learning from the perspective of Chinese learners?

 

In the ten dimension, Chinese learners regards the following ten criteria as the most important items for quality assurance in DE/e-learning, which includes Strong leadership, Course content adaptability to students’ levels, Providing course information, Fair rubrics for learning assessment, Periodic training for faculty/tutors/staff, Inclusion of individualized learning activities in courses, Student interaction with other students, Media/technology production facilities, Existence of quality standards specifically for distance education, Social support for students.

 

1. Are there any differences in learners’ perception of the quality of DE/e-learning according to age groups, learning methods and DE/e-learning experience?

 

From Table 4 to Table 6 present the analysis about learners’ characteristics effects on their view of the quality of DE/e-learning. Generally speaking, learning experience has a greater impact on learners’ perspectives than age and learning methods.

 

1. Are there any differences between learners and teachers in the perception of the quality of DE/e-learning?

 

The data result in Table 3 reveals the big difference between learners teachers in the perception of the quality of DE/e-learning. Three major difference lies in the dimensions of institutional credibility, teaching and learning and course development.

 

Conclusions
This study has explored Chinese learners’ perception of the quality of DE/e-learning and compare the difference between learners’ and teachers’ by dividing the concept of the quality of DE/e-learning into ten dimensions, which includes Institutional credibility，Course development，Information and publicity，Evaluation and assessment，Faculty support，Interactive tasks，Infrastructure，Teaching and learning，Internal quality assurance，and Student support. The importance of each criteria in each dimension viewed by learners and teachers was empirically examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The results revealed considerable support for policies makers especially quality benchmarks developer in distance education. Besides, the difference of learners’ and teachers’ perception and parts of learners’ view according age, learning method and experience were found to be significant, providing significant insight into developing proper quality standards.

 

As with all empirical research, this study has its limitations. First, this study aimed to investigate learners’ view of quality of DE/e-learning in higher education. As a result, the findings of this study may not be generalized to the quality assurance in different contexts, such as elementary schools and high schools. More research that aims to examine the proposed quality framework using a variety of samples in similar and different contexts is needed to further validate and refine the investigation instrument. Second, this study has investigated the perception of quality of DE/e-learning by incorporating ten variables from various perspectives, and the variables in the proposed investigation theoretical framework were validated important by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). However, there is still room for improvement. To further our understanding of the perception of quality of DE/e-learning in various contexts, we strongly encourage future research that deletes less important variables, adjust less important criteria, and combine parts of dimensions into a broader concept to enhance the usability of this framework.

 

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the participants for their valuable feedback on this investigation. This study was funded by International Council of Distance Education, ICDE, Pandora project-Quality Assurance (QA) Models, Standards and Key Performance Indicators for ICT-supported Distance Education (DE) in Asia.

 

References

• Alexander, M. W., Truell, A. D., & Bartlett, J. E. (2002). Students' perceptions of online testing. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 44(1), 59-68.
  Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning (2010). ACODE benchmarks, http://www.acode.edu.au/benchmarks.php
• Cashion, J., & Palmieri, P. (2002). The secret Is the teacher: The learner view of online learning. Leabrook, South Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved January 17,2005, from http://www.ncver.edu.au
• Chin-Wen C. , & Che-Hao L. (2010). Investigating the learners' perceptions of online learning Distance Learning and Education (ICDLE), 2010 4th International Conference, Issue (3-5), 208 – 210.
• Commonwealth of Learning (2009), Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Program, from http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/pub_HE_QA_Toolkit_web.pdf
• Distance Education and Training Council (2011), Accreditation Handbook, from http://www.detc.org/accreditationhandbook/
• Institute for Higher Education Policy (2002), Quality on the line, from http://www.ihep.org/press-room/news_release-detail.cfm?id=142
• Malaysian Qualifications Agency (2009), Code of Practice for Institutional Audit, from http://www.mqa.gov.my/en/garispanduan_copia.cfm
• Open and Distance Learning Quality Council (2005) ODLQC benchmarks, from http://www.odlqc.org.uk/standard.htm
• Peters, L. (2001, September/October). Through the looking glass: Student perceptions of online learning. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from http://www.marylandonline.org/articles/looking_glass_intro
• Salvador L. Carranza (2008). A grounded theory of high-quality distance education programs: student perspectives, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  Uzunboylu, H. (2007). Teacher Attitudes Toward Online Education Following an Online Inservice Program , International Journal on E-Learning, 6 (2). from http://www.editlib.org/?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=19803
• Yi Yang (2006). An investigation on students' perceptions of online course quality and contribution factors for those perceptions. Mississippi State University