This document discusses quality assurance frameworks for digital higher education. It provides an outline that includes framing remarks on the definition of quality, a critical analysis of existing quality assurance frameworks, and how quality assurance agencies are responding globally. The analysis finds that while frameworks commonly include similar domains, more research is needed on implementation. Quality assurance approaches are diverse, ranging from frameworks integrated into general guidelines to supplementary guidelines. Overall, the document argues that ensuring quality in digital education remains an ongoing challenge due to implementation gaps and disconnects between frameworks.

1. The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education:
A Critical Analysis of QA Frameworks
20th June 2022
Professor Mark Brown
Director, National Institute for Digital Learning
Dublin City University
@mbrownz

2. Why a
renewed focus
on quality?
The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education

3. The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education
First introduced in 2008
https://ekka.edu.ee/en/universities/institutional-accreditation/ekka-quality-label/

4. The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education
Last
week

5. 2018
The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education

6. 1. Some framing remarks
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding
Outline…
The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education

7. The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education
https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/inline-files/prg-report-final-09-02-21.pdf

8. 1. Some framing remarks
“Quality is an elusive
term for which there is a
wide variety of
interpretations depending
upon the views of different
stakeholders.”
(Schindler, et al., 2015, p. 4)
What do we mean by quality?

9. Is QA a new problem?
2002
2005
2004
US
UK
NZ
1. Some framing remarks

10.  Multifaced and multifunctional
 Mission driven and fit-for-purpose
 Where institutions are central to QA processes
 Owned, shared, and distributed across institutions
 Approach is contextualised to meet local requirements
 Is representative of all stakeholders, especially students
 Intentional and integrated into mainstream QA processes
 Conversational, shares experiences and involves feedback loops
 Evidence driven, transparent, action-focused, and impactful
 Dynamic as part of a living and thriving quality culture
Synthesis of QA principles…
1. Some framing remarks

11. 2022
https://eua.eu/101-projects/772-digi-he.html
1. Some framing remarks

12. “The overarching paradox is that online and
distance education systems with their digital
content and the persistent record of online
transactions provide a rich source of evidence to
enable quality assurance and audit processes.
1. Some framing remarks
Is F2F the gold standard?

13. “The overarching paradox is that online and
distance education systems with their digital
content and the persistent record of online
transactions provide a rich source of evidence to
enable quality assurance and audit processes.
If open and distance learning were the current
dominant mode of Higher Education… the
challenge would lie in how to quality assure a form
of education in which interactions at the core of the
system were ephemeral, highly dependent on
personal interpretation by the teacher and student
and seldom directly monitored” (2015, p. 16).
1. Some framing remarks
Is F2F the gold standard?

14. https://eddl.tru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/PreparingDigitalUniversity-George-Siemens.pdf
2015
“Distance education, when properly
planned, designed, and supported by the
appropriate mix of technology and
pedagogy, is equivalent to, or in
certain scenarios more effective
than, traditional face-to-face classroom
instruction” (p. 11).
2004
1. Some framing remarks
Is mode of delivery really a factor?

15. Why is nomenclature such a problem?
• 46 definitions
• Muddied terminology
• Often overlapping terms
ENQA (2018) definitions…
- Online delivery
- Blended delivery
1. Some framing remarks

16. 2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks
Just 12%

17. 2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

18. 2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks
Alignment
8 Benchmarks

19. https://www.apec.org/publications/2019/12/apec-quality-assurance-of-online-learning-toolkit
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks
Culture

20. https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/blended-learning-quality-higher-education-introducing-new-self-assessment-tool-asia-pacific
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

21. http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/3217/TEL%20Benchmarking%20Report-Final-Fillable.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

22. 2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks
Three Layers

23. 2018
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

24. 2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

25. • Version
• Domains
• Indicators
• Levels
• Implementation Guide
• Action Plan
• Research on Use
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

26. Agregated analysis of domains across frameworks…
Most
Common
Least
Common
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

27. • An abundance of QA frameworks
• Many common dimensions shared across
the different QA frameworks and self-
assessment tools
• More research needed on how institutions
implement QA frameworks and self-
assessment tools to promote cultures of
continuous improvement
Findings…
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

28. 2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks
Culture
2022

29. https://hybridpedagogy.org/the-cult-of-quality-matters/
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks
2021

30. 2021
The report maintains the position that QA needs to be
embedded into existing institution-wide processes, “...
and not separate from the mainstream” (Tait, 2021, p. 9-
10).
2. Critical analysis of quality frameworks

31. Macro-Level
- National level focus
A diverse response…
Meso-Level
- Institution level focus
Micro-Level
- Programme level focus
Nano-Level
- Learner level focus Quality Assurance
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

32. • Mainstreamed within existing general quality guidelines / processes
- By default
- Or by intent
• Specific aligned or supplementary quality guidelines / processes
- Sitting alongside
- No legal status
• Integrated into revised quality guidelines / process
- Mapped to standards
- Focus on good practice
Three responses…
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

33. “Standards or criteria take into consideration the
specific aspects related to different modes of
provision, such as transnational education,
distance or online programmes or other non-
traditional approaches to HE as relevant to the
context in which they operate” (p.7).
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

34. 2018 No Formal Status
Specific Aligned
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

35. 2020
New
Integrated
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

36. 2019
Structural
Alignment
Integrated
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

37. 3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

38. Mapped to standards
Enabling
2020
Evolving
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

39. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/online-learning-good-practice
Additional Guidance
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

40. Quality Considerations
New and Emerging
2018
3. How QA agencies around the globe are responding

41. • A plethora of frameworks
• A major implementation gap
• Silos, tensions and important
disconnections in the quest for
quality
In sum…
The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education

42. The Quest for Quality in Digital Higher Education