View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 797 - 828 (2012)
ISSN: 0128-7702 © Universiti Putra Malaysia Press
SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIESJournal homepage: http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/
Article history:Received: 8 December 2010Accepted: 13 September 2011
ARTICLE INFO
E-mail addresses: dr.amanialhossan@gmail.com (Amani Al-Hosan), Dr.AfnanOyaid@alumni.exeter.ac.uk (Afnan Oyaid)* Corresponding author
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid*
Faculty of Education, Princess Nora University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT
Many studies indicated the beneficial impacts of Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) on teaching and learning experience (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Therefore, quality and standardisation of e-learning have become a crucial success factor to ensure the quality of learning and to maximize benefits gained from such learning experience. This research sought to identify and propose a set of standards for VLEs in science education so as to ensure the quality of these environments and maximize the learning benefits for students. A wide range of studies have been analyzed in order to identify the main dimensions of VLE from which quality standards should be derived. Hence, an evaluation form with six main standards was developed based on previous studies. It was then distributed to purposively selected panel of experts who ranked on a 3-point scale and determined the importance of each standard. The ranking of these standards was done by the panel of experts from Saudi, European, and Malaysian universities with different backgrounds. These standards, arranged in their order of importance, are: design, support, authority and safety, improvement and review, VLE cost effectiveness, and quality VLE software. Moreover, the findings indicated that the devised form is suitable to be used as an evaluation tool to assess the quality of VLE for science education.
Keywords: Virtual learning environments, VLE, total quality, standards, science education, virtual environments
INTRODUCTION
A learning environment is defined as a group of circumstances and factors that learners interact with and are influenced by them. They characterize the educational situation and give it its uniqueness. Research has shown that the learning environment affects the learner according to the degree of its
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
798 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 798 - 828 (2012)
authenticity (Khamees, 2003). However, when it is difficult to provide this kind of environment, simulated environments are the most suitable alternatives (Ibid).
Using simulations and virtual reality, which have become well established during the last ten years, have made it possible to design simulated learning environments using computers that may sometimes surpass the real, natural environments (Hamit, 1993; Helsel, 1992). Virtual reality is interactive as it responds to users’ actions and behaviour. In fact, it provides a degree of interaction that is not possible in traditional multimedia since it allows users to go anywhere and discover any place in the virtual reality environment (Berge & Clark, 2005). Virtual reality has become a new method of learning using computers that adds a wide range of scientific imagination and learning possibilities to individuals (Chow, Andrews, & Trueman, 2007). It also offers an individualized learning experience that fulfills the educational needs of students with different learning styles, in addition to VLE’s flexibility in terms of time and place (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Moreover, one of its most important advantages is the ease of continuous renewal of the information provided, which helps make learning more enjoyable and individualised (Al-Shanak & Doumi, 2009).
Although virtual reality emerged as an area of distinction for computer applications during the eighties, this technology is still considered in its early stages of development. So far, there has been little research on this technology, particularly with regard to its educational applications. Its novelty has
led researchers and educators to exert huge efforts to build a theoretical and conceptual basis for this emerging technology and its potential (Clark & Berge, 2005; Mclellan, 1996).
With the increasing need for virtual learning technology, both locally and internationally, the development of virtual learning environments has become a science with its own foundations and origin. The development of educational materials and learning environments is no longer left to personal efforts. In fact, it now has its internationally known principles and standards, especially after the development of quality concepts. Thus, quality assurance has become a very important issue because virtual learning universities and institutions cannot be accredited without subjecting them to quality standards. If we look at the reality of science education today, especially in the Arab region, we find that the learner’s knowledge acquisition depends mainly on theory rather than practice and experimentation of newly acquired knowledge in real life. This is due to many reasons, which include the lack of suitable equipment and lab instruments, the risks and dangers of some laboratory experiments, and the high cost of materials and shortage of time (Al-Radi, 2008).
A virtual environment that is well-designed provides learners with authentic learning experiences that enable them to transfer what is happening within the virtual learning environment, in terms of skills, experiences and experiential learning acquired to real life situations.
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
799Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 799 - 828 (2012)
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The First and Second International Conferences of e-Learning and Distance Learning, which were held in Riyadh in March 2009 and February 2011 subsequently, recommended activating the roles of professional institutions and specialized groups in emphasizing quality control procedures in e-learning and distance learning contexts. They also suggested establishing a clear policy for encouraging and supporting interested staff and students. Furthermore, standard tools should also be developed and adopted to determine the extent of readiness to plan and apply e-learning at universities and other academic institutions (First International Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning, 2009; Second International Conference of E-Learning and Distance Learning, 2011).
The benefits or the advantages of virtual learning in general and in science education in particular, and the widespread nature of its applications around the world, have led to increasing attention to improvement of its quality. The issue of quality assurance in virtual learning has become a new challenge to e-learning in higher education. Ignoring this challenge means that e-courses and programmes created will neither be recognized nor certified and lacking in quality. This challenge is faced by most traditional universities, and all virtual universities based on e-learning (Al-Mulla, 2008).
It is well known that even the world’s leading universities have started to provide virtual academic programmes. These include
Harvard University, Berkeley University, University of Massachusetts, Stanford University, The British Open University, University of London, and University of Oxford. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education in Britain pays a special attention to assuring the quality of electronic and virtual learning programmes (QAA, 2010). Indeed, there are some virtual universities that offer their educational services using purely virtual methods, including admission and registration, evaluation and granting of degrees. Among these universities are Jones International University in the United States of America and the International Management Centre’s Association in Britain (Middlehurst, 2002).
Therefore, the assurance of quality in virtual and e-learning is a very important issue for any academic courses, programmes, and educational environment. If quality is a prerequisite for the success of the educational process in general, it is essential for virtual and e-learning in particular. Since the concept of quality in virtual and e-learning is associated in the literature and recent studies with the outcome of the educational process, most definitions of quality in e-learning have described it in terms of measuring or testing the effectiveness and quality of e-learning programs in accordance with standards and benchmarks (Barker, 2007).
Based on the foregoing, the issue of ensuring the quality of virtual and e-learning programmes is subject to the adherence and conformity of these programmes to the quality standards issued by professional non-profit organizations. Therefore, it is
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
800 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 800 - 828 (2012)
crucial to develop appropriate criteria and measures to insure the quality of these programmes (Al-Mulla, 2008).
In light of these issues, the aim of this study was to set mechanisms and standards so as to ensure quality and validity of virtual science learning environment. Therefore, this study sought to construct a concept proposal and frame of reference for the future to ensure the quality of virtual learning environments, especially in view of the lack of such studies in the Arab World in general and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in particular.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The objective of this study was to identify standards for the quality assurance model of the science virtual learning environments, and rank the standards in their order of importance.
The study aimed to answer the following key questions:
1. What is the proposed view of virtual environments of science education in the light of total quality standards?
1.1 What are the important standards that can be included in the quality assurance model of VLE for science education and virtual laboratories?
1.2 To what extent are these standards important in order of ranking to ensure the quality in VLE of science education?
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Recent research has proven the importance of quality assurance in VLEs (Al-Shanak & Doumi, 2009). In this paper, we sought to identify these standards based on research in the area of quality assurance in VLE for science education. However, we believe that these standards vary in importance, and that prioritizing them will better ensure the quality of VLE. Hence, the aim of this paper was to identify and prioritize these standards based on previous research in the field, as well as input from experts in the field of VLE and E-learning.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Importance of VLE in Education
In order to define and develop quality standards for VLEs, it is important to review and point out the factors that facilitate its effectiveness and usefulness. For this purpose, the researchers set the study of Barbour and Reeves (2009) as the starting point. This study focused on revising previous research, which dealt with the current status of virtual schools between 2004 and 2008. This study also differentiated between the various types of virtual schools on the basis of learning type, namely, synchronized, asynchronized or an independent virtual school. The researchers in this study have pointed out some of the educational benefits of virtual learning. The most significant ones can be summed up as follows:
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
801Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 801 - 828 (2012)
• The ability to offer an individual sophisticated learning programme that is customized to meet the particular requirements of a certain student to fit his or her own learning style,
• The flexibility in terms of time and place,
• The enhanced opportunities for disabled students whose disability otherwise prevented them from pursuing a conventional education,
• Providing higher levels of motivation,
• Widening the coverage of educational services,
• Offering high-quality educational opportunities,
• Improving the skills and results of students, and
• Offering the opportunity for multiple educational options (Ibid).
Barbour and Reeves (2009) also pointed out the challenges that virtual education faces, such as the nature of the students and the need for them to have positive attitudes towards self-study, the technical skills needed, enthusiasm for the educational method in use and time management skills. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance of assessing the functionality of the virtual science learning environments, in addition to assessing the extent to which these environments provide the expected benefits both for the teacher and the students.
The integration of VLEs in education has been proven as useful and beneficial for students’ attainment in many studies.
The study of Abofakhr (2008) used the pre- and post-test method to measure students’ attainment as a result of using VLEs in a sociology course at the Syrian virtual university. Among the most important conclusions of the study is that the attainment level of the experimental group students, who were taught via the virtual university, increased as compared to their counterparts who had studied the same module within the framework of conventional education at the University of Damascus. In addition, there were differences in the results of the pre-test and post-test to which the students of the experimental group were subjected. The results are in favour for the post-test which provides strong support for the effectiveness of learning via a virtual university.
The study of Meisner, Hoffman and Turner (2008) used pre- and post-test in a science course. The researchers conducted a pre-test on the students who were to be involved in the experimental sample before allowing them to use a high-quality VLE, which consisted of a virtual physics lab. Then, after one semester, the researchers conducted a post-test which further demonstrated the effectiveness of VLE, as students’ attainment improved. In addition, the test revealed their perceptions and positive attitudes towards this type of learning. According to the researchers, the study lends strong support to the view that the attainment level of students being taught via VLE is far better than those taught in a conventional learning environment.
Finally, the study of Al-Husari (2002) sought to identify the perceived benefits of
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
802 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 802 - 828 (2012)
using VLEs from the students’ viewpoint. Students pointed out that the programme helped them to understand scientific processes and the concepts that they usually found difficult to grasp through conventional methods. In addition, these programs also gave them the chance to understand the changes that occur as a result of conducting a physical or chemical experiment. Moreover, the VLE helped to increase students’ concentration and attention, as well as increasing the students’ contribution and interaction. It also developed the students’ sense of responsibility for their own learning.
Quality Assurance in VLE
Ensuring the quality of VLE becomes essential in order to achieve the educational benefits presented above. In this regard, it is useful to point out that quality assurance in virtual learning is a concept that is in the interests of all stakeholders, as academic accreditation agencies call for this quality, and users of these environments expect it. Moreover, teaching staff need it in order to support their educational role (McLoughlin & Visser, 2003;Wang, 2006). Therefore, governmental quality agencies and educational institutions throughout the world exert their best efforts to address the challenges which arise from the use of VLEs around the world. One particular example of this interest in quality assurance is the survey carried out by the UK’s OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) (Ofsted, 2009) which reported that a lot of participants expressed their concern about quality assurance of VLEs
being used in British schools. They have also emphasized the importance of having official procedures to assure the quality of VLEs in education in general as well as in specific content areas.
In general, the quality standards for VLEs should take the needs of all the stakeholders and beneficiaries into consideration, namely, the students, the teacher and the educational institution (Middlehurst, 2003). In this regard, the British agency for the quality of higher education (the QAA) is concerned with setting uniformed standards to assure their application within the framework of higher education in general and all forms of electronic education in particular. The main point on which the concept of quality of electronic education is established and of which virtual learning falls under can be summed up under the following headings: ease of access, arrangement of educational content, delivery system, student support, communication and interaction, and evaluation (QAA, 2010). Frydenberg (2002) proposed and discussed a set of general standards to be used to assess the quality of electronic education, and also defined the criteria that should be covered by each standard. These standards are as follows: institutional commitment, technology, students services, curriculum design and development, education and teacher, delivery system, financing, legal issues, and evaluation. The study of Chibueze (2008) agrees with the former studies in terms of general quality standards which include institutional support, curriculum development, the process of teaching and
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
803Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 803 - 828 (2012)
learning, structure of educational content, students’ support, teaching staff’s support, examining and evaluation, and ease of access.
In this regard, Fyodorova (2005) studied the implications of the theory of multiple intelligences on the quality of virtual education. This study is very useful for the present study because of its comprehensiveness and specificity concerning all of the components of VLE and because of the framework proposed by the author for assessing and designing VLE. The evaluation standards include gaining students’ attention, identifying the learning objectives, stimulating recall of prior knowledge, presenting the content, extracting and providing feedback, estimation, improving retention and transfer, assessment, improving the process of saving and transferring information, providing a variety of educational content, creating interaction that attracts attention, providing instant feedback, encouraging interaction with other students and teachers. This framework distinguishes between educational standards and technical standards, which include interface, navigation, supervision, learners’ interaction, efficiency, presentation, practice activities, feedback, and course introduction.
On the regional level, Al-Mulla (2008) designed a proposed tool for quality assurance of academic programmes delivered electronically. The tool consists of 65 indicators which are divided into 9 main standards, namely, administrative, program design, curriculum design, content display,
curriculum evaluation, student support, teaching staff support, other resources, and revision. Al-Mulla proposes using his tool as an indicator to evaluate the quality of e-learning programs; however, the tool does not lend itself to be used in evaluating VLE, especially ones that were designed for science education.
The study of Al-Saleh (2005) concerned with measuring the quality of e-learning by setting basic standards in order to evaluate the quality of education delivered. These standards were then categorized; each standard contains indicators that indicate the quality of the e-curriculum being evaluated. In addition, the researcher suggested a method to evaluate and measure how much a given e-curriculum meets the standards of educational design quality. These standards include institutional support, technical support, student support, teaching staff support, technology, design and development of the curriculum, visual design, the economics of e-learning system, and evaluation. As for the standard of educational design quality, the researcher allocated specific main and subsidiary standards that tackle and discuss the details of the e-learning experience. These standards include the quality of the design process, the objectives and requirements of the curriculum, the electronic content, motivation, educational strategies and learning activities, interaction and feedback, interface design, e-learning technology, evaluation of learner’s performance, and evaluation of curriculum effectiveness.
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
804 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 804 - 828 (2012)
The authors feel that it necessary to point out that the aforementioned quality standards lack the legally binding nature that obliges educational institutions to apply them, although these quality standards are issued by official governmental bodies and research institutions, and in some countries, these standards come from educational institutions. The standards serve as indicators and applications that can be described as complying with quality, yet these standards are not obligatory.
From the studies presented above, it is evident that there are common quality standards shared among these studies despite the different terms used to identify them. Therefore, the researchers attempted to point out and categorize these standards in order to understand the multiple dimensions of quality in VLE. It can be concluded that these standards fall mainly under three headings institutional, educational, and technical standards. These standards were further examined in more detail to improve their accuracy and representativeness, and this resulted in other standards such as the evaluation of the learning experience, which was labelled in Chibueze (2008) as the standard of “examining and evaluation”, and in QAA (2010) as “evaluation”. Moreover, different studies discussed standards related to support, whether it was “students services” (Frydenberg, 2002) or “staff support” (Al-Mulla, 2008) or even “technical support” (Al-Saleh, 2005), in which they were all grouped in this current study under management and support standards.
Dimensions of Quality
In this paper, a wide range of studies were analyzed to identify the main dimensions of VLE quality standards. This was achieved through reviewing the studies which are related to total quality standards within programmes and educational institutions that apply virtual and e-learning. The most important dimensions were identified, and these should serve as the basis for the quality standard within the virtual environment. The dimensions are as follows:
1. The institutional dimension: This concerns with the administrative and management issues such as organization, certification, finance, investment returns, information technology services, educational development, marketing services and academic affairs such as teaching staff support, educational affairs, work load, class size, salaries, and intellectual property rights. Finally, student services include pre-registration services, programme information, counselling and guidance, financial support, registration, fees, library support, and social support networks.
2. The educational or pedagogical dimension: This refers to teaching and learning. This dimension is concerned with issues related to objectives, content, design and presentation methods, and teaching strategies. There are varied educational methods used in the science education VLE for instance: physical simulation, procedural simulation,
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
805Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 805 - 828 (2012)
situation simulation, and process simulation.
3. The technological dimension: This examines the i s sues regard ing technological infrastructure of the learning environment. This dimension includes the design and planning of the infrastructure, hardware, and software.
4. Interface design dimension: This refers to the overall appearance of VLE programmes including the design of the website, content design, browsing, and user-friendliness.
5. Evaluation dimension: This includes evaluating students learning and the learning environment.
6. Virtual learning management dimension: This refers to the maintenance of the VLE as well as information distribution.
7. Resource support dimension: This examines the guidance support, technical support, vocational guidance support, and the resources required to support the VLE.
8. Ethical dimension: This refers to the social cultural and geographical variation, as well as variation among students, courses of action and legal actions such as: regulatory policy, copyright and plagiarism.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
This study followed the descriptive analytical method as it is the most suitable method for this type of research because it operates on the basis of hypothesis
and it involves the collection of data in order to test the hypothesis and to answer questions concerning the research subject and explain these answers qualitatively and quantitatively (Cohen, Manion, & Manion, 2000). Knowing that there is a limited number of experts in the area of VLE for science education, the study used purposive sampling technique and the participants were chosen based on who was thought to be appropriate for the study. The sample consisted of 30 educational experts from Saudi Arabian, European, and Malaysian universities, specialized in science education, pedagogy, psychology, educational technology, e-learning, virtual learning, information systems, and computer programming, in addition to specialists at National and International Academic Standardization Organizations.
In order to answer the first research question, a large number of studies that tackled the quality of virtual environments and e-learning have been analysed. One area of difficulty was that of defining distinctive standards for VLE in particular since most of the work concerned with quality was designed for e-learning and there is a lack of research in the field of VLE quality standards. To remedy this lack, an evaluation form containing six main standards of quality in VLE on a 3 point scale was designed to identify the importance of each standard making (3) the most important.
Based on the research discussed above, the six main standards that have been identified are as follows:
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
806 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 806 - 828 (2012)
1. The design standard. This was divided into three subsidiary standards: (i) standards for quality design of virtual sc ience educat ion environment dimensions and components, (ii) standards for quality instructional design, and (iii) standards for quality technical design.
2. Standards for quality VLE software.
3. Support standards. It was divided into four subsidiary standards, namely, institutional support, student support, faculty support, and technical support.
4. Authority and safety standards.
5. Improvement and review standards.
6. VLE cost effectiveness standard.
As previously mentioned, the form contained the six main standards as main headings. Under each standard, there are sub-standards and statements that describe the highest level of standard performance
of VLE. To answer the second research question, the participants were asked to specify the importance of each standard and its indicators.
The processes of designing, building and applying the proposed evaluation form for the standards of VLE of science education passed through many phases, as summarized in the following:
The first phase: Identifying VLE for science education quality standards. This was achieved by viewing earlier studies which are related to total quality standards of educational programmes and institutions which apply e-learning and virtual education. We also researched the foundations of virtual and e-learning within the field of science education. Then, Fig.1 was devised to indicate the dimension of the science virtual learning environment.
The second phase: After designing the visual representation of VLE dimensions, the six main standards and their indicators
Fig.1: Science virtual learning environment dimensions.
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
807Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 807 - 828 (2012)
were derived from the VLE dimensions. Since these dimensions cover a wide range of topics, some of the derived standards overlapped; therefore, we took the decision to avoid overlapping and create the six standards which in some cases combine two dimensions together. For example, the “design” standard was derived from the “pedagogical”, “technological”, and “interface design” dimensions.
The third phase: This phase was concerned with ensuring the validity and usability of the evaluation form. A face validity check was applied as the form was presented to 15 experts who specialize in science education, educational technology, psychology, and educational design to verify
that the indicators of the form serve their objective. After making some amendments and changes to the vocabulary of the form suggested by the experts, they agreed that the form is valid for application.
The fourth phase: The phase aimed to measure the internal consistency of the evaluation form using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, which indicates the average correlation of all the items in any scale (Pallant, 2001). In the pilot study, when the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was calculated, an overall coefficient of (0.90) was obtained. Given the nature of the form, the Alpha value was considered to signify adequate reliability.
Fig.2: Proposed visual model for the virtual science learning environment in relation to total quality standards.
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
808 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 808 - 828 (2012)
The fifth phase: In this phase, the evaluation form was distributed to 30 experts who specialized in science education, educational technology, computer teaching methods, and e-learning in Saudi, European, and Malaysian universities.
Having satisfactorily addressed the two subsidiary questions, the researchers turned their attention to the main question: What is the proposed view of virtual environments of science education in relation to total quality assurance standards? A wide range of studies and websites which tackled issues related to virtual and e-learning quality design were consulted. In the end, the researchers came out with a proposed model, as shown in Fig.2.
Fig.2 demonstrates how the proposed virtual science learning environment model was designed in relation to total quality standards proposed above. The model was designed to serve the needs of both the virtual teacher and virtual students to provide and ensure a quality learning experience. The function of the components of the VLE aligns with the standards presented above. As shown, the support standard is represented in this model in terms of technical support, institutional support, student support, and faculty support. The improvement and review standards as well as the VLE cost effectiveness standard are also clearly presented. The arrows represent the interaction and feedback between all the VLE components, including the inputs and outputs. These connections create a comprehensive system that is bounded to its component through continuous cause-and-effect relations.
The VLE is situated within the content management system that applies all technical design standards. The VLE contains virtual classes which are distributed in the virtual environment, providing various access points for national and international networks, e-mail, mail groups, telnet, video on demand (VOD), interactive televisions, instant and international educational materials (Al-Mubarak, 2004). In these classes, students learn through simulations which were designed according to instructional design standards, quality design standards of VLEs, and standards for quality VLE software. Students can conduct scientific experiments within virtual laboratories by dealing with the variables which they cannot deal with in real life. Within the frame of VLEs, students are left on their own to try, explore, inquire, analyze and build their own knowledge all by themselves (Gerval & Le Ru, 2008). In any learning experience, moreover, students are assessed to evaluate their progress and to identify the weaknesses and strengths; it is important to note that the VLE e-assessment is also subjected to quality technical design standards.
In this VLE model, students can visit scientific clubs, science museum, virtual libraries, and practice a wide variety of enriching activities which enable them to gain authentic experience; all of which were designed according to quality VLE design standards (Hin & Subramaniam, 2005). The continuous communication between teachers, students, and administration plays an important role in this model. The VLE communication tools were designed in accordance with technical design standards.
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
809Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 809 - 828 (2012)
They enable synchronous and asynchronous online communication via email, chat rooms, science forums, news groups, and video conferencing so as to allow interaction with others who are parts of their educational experience (Ellis & Calvo, 2007).
FINDINGS: SEMANTIC ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
Data acquired from the experts were processed and analyzed. The analysis included frequencies and percentages, in addition to Chi-square test. The appendix shows the form in full length and the percentages for each indicator. The form in the appendix shows that there are statistical differences in arranging the degree of importance of the main and subsidiary standards of virtual sciences learning environment, which reflect its importance from the participants’ point of view. This is applicable at levels 0.05 and 0.01 in all of the main and subsidiary standards, which means that the hypothesis is acceptable on the basis of these indicators. The Chi-square test was used to identify the extent of the significance of differences in arranging the
degree of importance of each standard. The values of χ2 were proven to be significant at all of the indicators, except for 10 indicators; namely, 27-28-29-31-45-67-68-105-164-165. This means that no differences were detected in the experts’ opinions about these ten indicators. Significant value of χ2 means that there is a variance in the respondents’ opinions, which is a result of the unequal frequencies in any indicator.
Through the study and the analysis of the form, we may infer that there is a meaningful statistical difference in arranging the degree of importance of VLE design standards in light of total quality standards which reflects the variance of their importance in the experts’ point of view, and this offers strong support to the study’s hypothesis.
The Relative Importance of the VLE Main Standards Indicated By the Experts
Table 1 and Fig.3 show that the percentage of the arithmetic average of the VLE standards exceeding 90%. This means that these standards are perceived as highly important, and this places heavy emphasis on using these standards as a tool for the purpose of
TABLE 1 The frequencies and percentages of the relative importance of VLE main standards arranged according to the order of importance
Rank Main Standard Frequencies Mean Value The mean average percentage
1 Design 345 316.3667 91.702 Support 177 162.0000 91.533 Authority and Safety 48 43.7000 91.044 Improvement and Review 42 38.1667 90.875 VLE Cost Effectiveness 33 29.9000 90.616 Quality VLE Software 60 54.3000 90.50
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
810 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 810 - 828 (2012)
evaluating virtual learning environments in general, and science education learning environments in particular. We may also notice that the “design standard” has been ranked as the standard with the highest percentage of 91.7%.
We think that the reason behind this high percentage is that the virtual science learning environment, including its components of hardware and software’s ultimate accuracy, is in its design and development, as design is the basic pillar on which the virtual environment is based, and the foundation which supports all of the other standards. The “support standard” came next in importance according to the experts’ view, with an average that reached 91.53%. We regard this standard as an important one and it is deservedly ahead of the other standards since earlier studies ascertained that the quality of VLEs cannot be guaranteed without supporting systems.
This goes along with the study of Moore (2002), which focused on the importance of support standard, and the satisfaction of teaching staff, as well as students who use the VLE. In the third place, the “authority and safety standard” came third, and the “improvement and review standard” came fourth. The “VLE cost effectiveness” was ranked fifth, and finally, the “quality VLE software” came in last. We consider the fact that the quality VLE software standard came in the last position as not indicating insignificance of the standard. On the contrary, its arithmetic average was 90.5%. This reflects the close similarity of the respondents’ views regarding the importance of the main standards of VLEs. Among the studies which emphasized on the quality of VLE and discussed similar standards are the studies of Al-Husari (2002), Al-Mulla (2008), and Al-Shanak and Doumi (2009).
Fig.3: The percentage of the relative importance of VLE main standards
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
811Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 811 - 828 (2012)
The Relative Importance of the VLE Subsidiary Standards Indicated by the Experts
Table 2 and Fig.4 show that the subsidiary standard of “quality design dimensions and components” was ranked as first as its arithmetic average reached 97.42%. The
reason for its high ranking was the main standard that it is related to was also ranked as first. Moreover, many studies have asserted the importance of setting accurate and clear indicators of the quality design of VLE dimensions and components, and the experts who participated in this study seem
TABLE 1 The frequencies and percentages of the relative importance of VLE subsidiary standards arranged according to the order of importance.
Rank Subsidiary standard Frequencies Mean value The mean average percentage1 Quality design dimensions
and components 66 64 .3000 97.42
2 Institutional support 42 39.1000 93.13 Technical support 24 22.2333 92.644 Quality instructional design 129 117.6667 91.215 Authority and safety 48 43.7000 91.046 Faculty support 45 40.9000 90.897 Improvement and review 42 38.1667 90.878 VLE cost effectiveness 33 29.9000 90.619 Student support 66 59.7667 90.5610 Quality VLE software 60 54.3000 90.511 Quality technical design 150 134.4000 89.6
Fig.4: The percentages of the relative importance of the VLE subsidiary standards
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
812 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 812 - 828 (2012)
to agree with these studies (e.g., Abofakhr, 2008; Al-Mulla, 2008; Al-Shaer, 2008). The “Institutional support” came second with 93.01%, followed by the “Technical support” that came third with 92.64%. The fourth was “Quality instructional design” with 91.21%, while “Authority and Safety” was fifth with 91.04%. The sixth was “Faculty support” with 90.89%, followed by “Improvement and review” with 90.87%. The eighth was “VLE cost effectiveness” with 90.61%. The ninth was “Quality VLE software” with 90.5%. The eleventh and last was “Quality technical design” with 89.6%. We believe that the last ranking of this particular standard does not mean that the survey participants have underestimated its importance, since it has a high percentage of 89.6%, and this value is regarded as high. The reason behind this ranking can be attributed to the fact that the technical quality design of VLEs refers to the comprehensive appearance of the environment including website design, pages design, content design, browsing, and usability. These minor details could be of little importance after fixing the cornerstone of the components and dimensions of the VLE design quality.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Many studies which have been reviewed highlight the benefits of using VLE in education. However, these benefits are not possible to be achieved without ensuring the quality of VLE. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the quality standards of VLE and present them in a form that
should be used to evaluate quality level in VLE for science education. In addition, it endeavoured to rank the quality standards in the order of their importance. This study is very thorough and detailed because of the importance and multi-faceted nature of the topic. It managed to identify six main standards for quality in VLE ranked in order of their importance. These standards are Design, Support, Authority and Safety, Improvement and Review, VLE Cost Effectiveness, and Quality VLE Software.
Ensuring the quality of VLEs requires a pluralistic approach that covers all details of the learning and teaching experience. Therefore, the designed form which contains six standards and eleven sub-standards covers every possible aspect of the VLE for science education and pays equal attention to all factors contributing to the beneficial use of VLE. In order to benefit from all the fruitful results promised by VLE, we therefore recommend using the proposed form as an evaluative tool to assess any current VLE or new ones to be implemented. However, given the rapid change and development in the field of VLE, it is suggested to continue researching and creating adaptable new standards as tools to measure and ensure the quality of VLEs.
REFERENCESAbofakhr, Z. (2008, 28-30 April). The Efficiency of
Virtual Learning on Knowledge Acquirement of Educational Qualification Diploma Students of Teaching Methodologies of Sociology, Experimental Study on the Syrian Virtual University. Paper presented at The Second International Conference & Exhibition for Zain
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
813Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 813 - 828 (2012)
e-Learning Centre. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from Zain E-Learning Centre.
Al-Husari, A. (2002). Patterns and characteristics of virtual reality, the views of students and teachers in some of its programs available through the Internet. Journal of Education Technology, 12, 3-38.
Al-Mubarak, A. (2004). The impact of teaching through virtual classrooms using the Internet on the attainment of faculty of education students studying education and communication techniques at King Saud University. Master thesis, King Saud University.
Al-Mulla, F. (2008, 28-30 April). Model of the proposed standards to ensure the quality of academic programs in e-learning. Paper presented at The Second International Conference & Exhibition for Zain e-Learning Centre. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Zain E-Learning Centre.
Al-Radi, A. (2008). Virtual Labs as a Model of E-learning. Paper presented at the E-Learning Forum: Ministry of Education, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Al-Saleh, B. (2005, 5-7 July). E-Learning and Instructional Design: Partnership for Quality. Paper presented at the Tenth Scientific Conference for the Egyptian Association for Educational Technology on E-Learning Technology and Total Quality Requirements, Cairo, Egypt.
Al-Shaer, H. (2008). The impact of an introductory training program on “universal design” of e-courses on the knowledge of its principles and use in the design and production of e-courses among instructional designers at e-learning centers. Studies in Pedagogy and Curriculum, 131.
Al-Shanak, K., & Doumi, H. (2009). Foundations of E-Learning in Science Education. Amman, Jordan: Dar Wael for Publishing and Distribution.
Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52, 403-416.
Barker, K. C. (2007). E-Learning Quality Standards for Consumer protection & Consumer confidence: A Canadian Case Study in E-learning Quality Assurance. Educational Technology & Society, 10, 109-119.
Berge, Z. L., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual Schools: Planning for Success. New York: NY: Teachers College Press.
Chibueze, I. L. (2008, 28-30 April). Factors Necessary for Effective Quality Assurance in a Web-Based Learning Environment. Paper presented at The Second International Conference & Exhibition for Zain e-Learning Centre. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from Zain E-Learning Centre.
Chow, A., Andrews, S., & Trueman, R. (2007). A ‘Second Life’: can this online, virtual reality world be used to increase the overall quality of learning and instruction in graduate distance learning programs? In M. Simonson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007, Volume 2 (pp. 86-94). Anaheim, CA: AECT.
Clark, T., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Perspectives on Virtual Schools. In T.Clark & Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Virtual Schools: Planning for success (pp. 9-19). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2007). Minimum indicators to quality assure blended learning supported by learning management systems. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 10, 60-70.
First International Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning. (2009). First International
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
814 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 814 - 828 (2012)
Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning. Retrieved November 15, 2010 from http://www.eli.elc.edu.sa/2009/
Frydenberg, J. (2002). Quality Standards in e-Learning: A matrix of analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3, 1-15.
Fyodorova, A. (2005). Multiple Intelligence Theory in Improving the Quality of Virtual Education. (Master thesis, University of Joensuu). Retrieved from ftp://cs.joensuu.fi/pub/Theses/2005_MSc_Fyodorova_Anna.pdf
Gerval, J. P., & Le Ru, Y. (2008). Virtual Lab: Discovering through Simulation. Paper presented at The 3rd International Conference on Virtual Learning. Retrieved November 2, 2010 from http://www.cniv.ro/2008/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/invited/ICVL_invitedPapers_paper01.pdf
Hamit, F. (1993). Virtual Reality: An Exploration of Cyberspace. Carmel, Indiana: Prentice-Hall Publishers.
Helsel, S. K. (1992). Virtual reality as a learning medium. Instructional Delivery Systems, 6, 4-5.
Hin, L. T. W., & Subramaniam, R. (2005). E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers . Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
Khamees, M. A. (2003). The Development of Educational Technology. Cairo: Dar Quba for Publishing and Distribution.
Mclellan, H. (1996). Virtual Realities. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 457-487). New York: Simon& Schuster Macmillan.
McLoughlin, C., & Visser, T. (2003). Global Perspectives on Quality in Online Higher Education. In D. Lassner, & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 253-256).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/13756.
Meisner, G. W., Hoffman, H., & Turner, M. (2008). Learning Physics in a Virtual Environment: Is There Any? Lat.Am.J.Phys.Edu, 2, 87-102.
Middlehurst, R. (2002) Quality assurance and accreditation for virtual education: A discussion of models and needs. In B. Wächter (Ed.), The Virtual Challenge to International Cooperation in Higher Education, a Project of the Academic Cooperation Association (pp. 99-109). ACA Papers on International Co-operation in Education, Bonn, Lemmens.
Moore, J. C. (2002). Elements of Quality: The Sloan-C Framework. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Ofsted. (2009). Virtual learning environments: an evaluation of their development in a sample of educational settings London, The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (Version 10 and 11). Buckingham: Open University Press.
QAA. (2010). Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning). Gloucester, UK: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Second International Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning. (2011). Second International Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://eli.elc.edu.sa/2011/
Wang, Q. (2006). Quality assurance best practices for assessing online programs. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(2), 265-274.
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
815Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 815 - 828 (2012)
APP
EN
DIX
The
Perc
enta
ges o
f the
Mai
n an
d Su
bsid
iary
Sta
ndar
ds o
f the
VLE
Sta
ndar
d Fo
rm re
late
d to
Tot
al Q
ualit
y St
anda
rds.
Mai
n St
anda
rdIn
dica
tor
Deg
ree
of Im
port
ance
%
32
11. Design Standards
1.1
Stan
dard
s for
Qua
lity
Des
ign
of V
irtu
al S
cien
ce E
duca
tion
Env
iron
men
t Dim
ensi
ons a
nd C
ompo
nent
s67
.723
.3--
1.
Avai
labi
lity
of h
igh
qual
ity p
hysi
cal,
soci
al, c
ultu
ral,
and
psyc
holo
gica
l dim
ensi
ons i
n V
LE.
2.
Des
ign
and
build
VLE
acc
ordi
ng to
“U
nive
rsal
Des
ign”
pro
toco
ls b
ecau
se it
sat
isfie
s le
arne
rs’ n
eeds
with
var
ied
lear
ning
styl
es a
nd m
ultip
le in
telli
genc
e in
clud
ing
spec
ial n
eeds
and
gift
ed le
arne
rs.
83.3
10.0
6.7
3.
VLE
and
labo
rato
ries
for
scie
nce
educ
atio
n ar
e de
sign
ed a
nd d
evel
oped
by
a sp
ecia
lised
team
of
prog
ram
mer
s, en
gine
ers,
inst
ruct
iona
l and
cur
ricul
um d
esig
n ex
perts
in sc
ienc
e ed
ucat
ion,
and
psy
chol
ogis
ts.
80.0
20.0
-
4.
Avai
labi
lity
of sc
ienc
e ed
ucat
ion
virtu
al to
ols a
nd m
ater
ials
des
igne
d ac
cord
ing
to v
irtua
l rea
lity
tech
nolo
gy.
80.0
16.7
3.3
5.
VLE
des
ign
shou
ld b
e sa
fe, s
ecur
e, a
nd c
onve
nien
t. 73
.323
.33.
3
6.
A c
lear
vis
ion
on th
e de
sign
of
VLE
cor
rect
ly b
ased
on
the
stan
dard
s of
acc
redi
ted
natio
nal a
nd in
tern
atio
nal
inst
itutio
ns.
73.3
23.3
3.3
7.
Hig
h qu
ality
spec
ifica
tions
and
stan
dard
s for
VLE
des
ign.
73.3
26.7
-
8.
Cle
ar ru
les a
nd re
gula
tions
to b
e pr
actic
ed in
VLE
.70
.030
.0-
9.
Cle
arly
stat
ed a
nd fo
rmat
ted
gene
ral a
ims o
f VLE
.73
.326
.7-
10.
The
gene
ral a
ims o
f VLE
are
bas
ed o
n ph
iloso
phic
al p
rinci
ples
of c
onst
ruct
ivis
m, b
rain
-bas
ed le
arni
ng, a
nd a
ctiv
e le
arni
ng m
etho
ds.
53.3
33.3
13.3
11.
Avai
labi
lity
of h
igh
tech
equ
ipm
ent t
o em
body
soph
istic
ated
scie
ntifi
c ph
enom
ena.
83
.310
.06.
7
12.
Avai
labi
lity
of tw
o ty
pes
of le
arni
ng in
VLE
: syn
chro
nous
virt
ual l
earn
ing
and
asyn
chro
nous
virt
ual l
earn
ing
via
the
inte
rnet
such
as e
mai
l, ch
attin
g, e
-for
ums,
bulle
tin b
oard
s, vi
deo
and
audi
o co
nfer
enci
ng, a
nd n
ews g
roup
s. 70
.030
.0-
13.
Avai
labi
lity
of v
irtua
l lib
rary
that
con
tain
s spe
cial
ized
ele
ctro
nic
reso
urce
s in
natu
ral s
cien
ces.
73
.326
.7-
14.
The
virt
ual l
ibra
ry is
org
aniz
ed in
a w
ay th
at a
ssis
ts in
sear
chin
g, d
ispl
ayin
g, a
nd u
sing
of i
nfor
mat
ion.
And
allo
w
elec
troni
c tre
atm
ent o
f inf
orm
atio
n by
mat
chin
g le
arne
rs’ n
eeds
with
ele
ctro
nic
reso
urce
s mem
ory
for i
nstru
ctio
nal
activ
ity.
70.0
30.3
-
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
816 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 816 - 828 (2012)
1. Design Standards
15.
Ther
e are
clea
r inp
ut, p
roce
ss, o
utpu
t of V
LE re
late
d to
diff
eren
t asp
ects
of le
arni
ng i.
e. co
gniti
ve, s
kills
, and
emot
ions
.67
.720
.03.
3
16.
The
re a
re c
lear
inst
ruct
ions
of p
roce
dure
s to
be fo
llow
ed in
usi
ng V
LE te
chno
logi
es.
80.0
16.7
3.3
17.
VLE
supp
orts
col
labo
rativ
e le
arni
ng th
roug
h its
virt
ual s
oftw
are.
60.0
26.7
13.3
18.
Avai
labi
lity
of v
irtua
l lab
softw
are
desi
gned
and
pro
gram
med
in c
oope
ratio
n w
ith h
igh
qual
ity a
cade
mic
, res
earc
h,
and
man
ufac
turin
g in
stitu
tions
.73
.320
.06.
7
19.
Avai
labi
lity
of e
lect
roni
c in
fras
truct
ure,
net
wor
ks, a
nd p
hysi
cal f
acili
ties f
or E
-Del
iver
y sy
stem
.90
.06.
73.
3
20.
The
choi
ce o
f E-D
eliv
ery
syst
em s
houl
d be
bas
ed o
n th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f the
prin
cipl
es o
f sci
ence
of i
nstru
ctio
n an
d le
arni
ng.
76.7
20.0
3.3
21.
Avai
labi
lity
for s
imul
atio
n so
ftwar
e su
itabl
e fo
r the
fiel
d un
der s
tudy
in V
LE.
56.7
40.0
3.3
22.
Usa
ge o
f del
iver
y sy
stem
s and
teac
hing
par
adig
ms s
uita
ble
for t
he c
urric
ulum
and
virt
ual l
ab.
63.3
33.3
3.3
23.
Con
side
ring
of e
lect
roni
c w
aste
dur
ing
plan
ning
pha
se o
f V
LE a
s w
ell a
s du
ring
conc
lusi
on o
f co
ntra
cts
with
co
mpa
nies
and
inst
itutio
ns a
nd a
gree
of r
ecyc
ling
of h
arm
ful e
lect
roni
c w
aste
in sa
fe m
etho
ds.
60.0
33.3
6.7
1.2
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Q
ualit
y In
stru
ctio
nal D
esig
n
1.
Ther
e is
a sy
stem
atic
pro
cess
in d
esig
ning
, dev
elop
ing,
and
pro
duci
ng th
e cu
rric
ulum
to m
eet l
earn
er’s
cog
nitiv
e,
skill
s, an
d em
otio
nal n
eeds
and
con
vert
them
to c
riter
ia in
virt
ual m
odul
e de
velo
pmen
t. 60
.023
.316
.7
2.
Des
ign
virtu
al a
nd e
lect
roni
c m
odul
es to
ens
ure
cohe
sion
and
stru
ctur
e of
con
tent
act
iviti
es.
90.0
6.7
3.3
3.
Virt
ual m
odul
e is
dev
elop
ed o
n th
e ba
ses o
f defi
ning
pre
requ
isite
s and
exp
erie
nces
in e
-lear
ning
.83
.313
.33.
3
4.
Virt
ual m
odul
e is
dev
elop
ed o
n th
e ba
ses o
f ana
lysi
ng th
e im
porta
nce
and
adva
ntag
es o
f the
mod
ule
from
lear
ner’s
pr
ospe
ctiv
e (O
rient
ing
Cont
ext),
phy
sical
spec
ifica
tions
of V
LE (I
nstru
ctio
nal C
onte
xt),
and
the c
hanc
es fo
r pra
ctic
ing
new
ly a
cqui
red
skill
s (Tr
ansf
er C
onte
xt).
60.0
40.0
-
5.
Cou
rse
cont
ains
orie
ntat
ion
activ
ities
and
defi
ned
prer
equi
site
s to
clar
ify le
arne
rs’ m
isco
ncep
tions
.66
.733
.3-
6.
Con
tent
stru
ctur
e of
con
cept
s, pr
inci
ples
, the
orie
s, an
d la
ws
are
defin
ed u
sing
ana
lysi
s su
itabl
e fo
r the
nat
ure
of
know
ledg
e an
d sk
ills r
equi
red
to fu
lfill
the
mod
ule
aim
s.56
.743
.3-
7.
Inst
ruct
iona
l crit
eria
of v
irtua
l mod
ule
is d
evel
oped
usi
ng su
itabl
e to
ols s
uch
as st
oryb
oard
ing
and
scen
ario
s. 76
.723
.3-
8.
App
ly fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ent b
y us
ing
Alp
ha a
nd B
eta
test
ing
durin
g th
e pr
oduc
tion
of th
e m
odul
e to
impr
ove
it ac
cord
ing
to a
sses
smen
t res
ults
.66
.733
.3-
9.
Dur
ing
desi
gn p
hase
dat
a co
llect
ion
proc
edur
es f
or m
odul
e ev
alua
tion
and
lear
ners
’ tra
inin
g an
d su
ppor
t are
all
defin
ed.
73.3
26.7
-
10.
Dur
ing
desi
gn p
hase
ove
rall
asse
ssm
ent p
roce
dure
s are
defi
ned
and
perio
dica
l rev
iew
s of v
irtua
l mod
ule
to e
nsur
e its
effi
cien
cy a
nd c
ompe
tenc
y.
70.0
26.7
3.3
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
817Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 817 - 828 (2012)
1. Design Standards
11.
Com
preh
ensiv
e syl
labu
s of t
he m
odul
e tha
t cle
arly
des
crib
e its
aim
s and
requ
irem
ents
on th
e web
bef
ore c
omm
enci
ng
teac
hing
the
mod
ule
in V
LE.
73.3
26.7
-
12.
Virt
ual m
odul
e sy
llabu
s des
crib
es sk
ills a
nd m
etho
ds o
f per
form
ance
eva
luat
ion.
83.3
13.3
3.3
13.
Mod
ule
aim
s are
form
ulat
ed in
pro
cedu
ral b
ehav
iour
al a
nd m
easu
rabl
e ap
proa
ch.
76.7
20.0
3.3
14.
Mod
ule
aim
s sho
uld
be a
chie
vabl
e in
ligh
t of l
earn
ers’
char
acte
ristic
s.83
.310
.06.
7
15.
Virt
ual m
odul
e ai
ms
shou
ld b
e re
late
d to
ped
agog
ical
stra
tegi
es, c
onte
nt, l
earn
ing
activ
ities
and
per
form
ance
ev
alua
tion
as a
n in
tegr
ated
syst
em.
83.3
10.0
6.7
16.
Virt
ual m
odul
e aim
s sup
port
high
er o
rder
thin
king
skill
s suc
h as
criti
cal t
hink
ing,
Met
a cog
nitio
n, cr
eativ
e thi
nkin
g,
and
deci
sion
mak
ing.
90.0
10.0
-
17.
Aim
s are
bas
ed o
n lif
e sk
ills a
nd c
ontin
uous
real
istic
app
licat
ions
in V
LE.
83.3
13.3
3.3
18.
Con
tent
shou
ld b
e of
hig
h qu
ality
and
car
eful
ly d
esig
ned
in te
rms o
f nov
elty
and
orig
inal
ity a
nd fl
awle
ss.
76.7
23.3
-
19.
Con
tent
shou
ld b
e fle
xibl
e to
cov
er v
arie
d V
LE a
pplic
atio
ns83
.316
.7-
20.
Con
tent
is d
esig
ned
and
pres
ente
d in
pur
pose
ful o
rgan
ized
chu
nks t
hat f
acili
tate
lear
ning
.83
.313
.33.
3
21.
Con
tent
incl
ude
trust
ed e
xter
nal l
inks
cho
sen
of h
igh
qual
ity a
nd s
tand
ard
to b
enefi
t sup
porti
ng v
irtua
l lea
rnin
g m
odul
e ac
tiviti
es a
nd a
ims.
73.3
20.0
6.7
22.
Inst
ruct
iona
l con
tent
is lo
gica
lly c
onne
cted
and
bas
ed o
n le
arne
r’s p
revi
ous e
xper
ienc
es
66.7
33.3
-
23.
Uni
fied
user
inte
rfac
e th
roug
h ou
t the
VLE
for c
ontro
l ico
ns, b
row
sing
, and
link
s.68
.710
.03.
3
24.
Virt
ual m
odul
e bo
ost l
earn
er’s
sel
f est
eem
and
cap
abili
ty to
ach
ieve
virt
ual l
earn
ing
aim
s th
roug
h sk
ills
and
tool
s of
self
lear
ning
and
eva
luat
ing
incl
uded
in th
e m
odul
e.
83.3
16.7
-
25.
Cou
rse
empl
oys t
he u
se o
f vis
ual t
hink
ing
tool
s suc
h as
con
cept
map
s, lo
gica
l org
aniz
atio
n of
con
cept
s, an
d vi
sual
m
aps.
70.0
26.7
3.3
26.
Cou
rse e
mpl
oys l
earn
ing
strat
egie
s sui
tabl
e for
its a
ims a
nd re
quire
men
ts, an
d le
arne
rs’ c
hara
cter
istic
s and
indi
vidu
al
diffe
renc
es b
etw
een
them
usi
ng sy
nchr
onou
s and
asy
nchr
onou
s too
ls.
76.7
20.0
3.3
27.
Avai
labi
lity
of le
arni
ng a
nd te
achi
ng st
rate
gies
and
tool
s to
assi
st le
arne
rs w
ith sp
ecia
l nee
ds.
83.3
16.7
-
28.
Cou
rse
uses
enr
ichi
ng a
nd a
ctiv
e le
arni
ng a
ctiv
ities
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith te
achi
ng st
anda
rds.
73.3
26.7
-
29.
Lear
ning
act
iviti
es o
ffer
link
s to
enr
ichi
ng in
form
atio
n su
itabl
e fo
r lea
rner
’s p
erfo
rman
ce a
nd p
rogr
ess.
72.3
26.7
-
30.
Inst
ruct
iona
l con
tent
in V
LE is
pro
gres
sive
in d
ifficu
lty a
nd so
phis
ticat
ion
as th
e le
arne
r pro
gres
s in
stud
ies.
66.7
30.0
3.3
31.
Info
rmat
ion
is p
rovi
ded
to le
arne
rs o
n pr
otoc
ols
of a
ctiv
e le
arne
r-co
nten
t, le
arne
r-te
ache
r, an
d le
arne
r-le
arne
r in
tera
ctio
n.76
.723
.3-
32.
Cou
rse
utili
ses s
uita
ble
tech
niqu
es a
nd m
etho
ds to
pro
vide
suffi
cien
t fee
dbac
k.70
.030
.0-
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
818 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 818 - 828 (2012)
1. Design Standards
33.
Cou
rse
enco
urag
es le
arne
rs to
pro
vide
feed
back
on
cour
se d
eliv
ery
and
activ
ities
in se
crec
y.76
.720
.03.
3
34.
VLE
has
an
elec
troni
c fo
rum
for l
earn
ers
in w
hich
they
exp
ress
thei
r edu
catio
nal n
eeds
, sug
gest
ions
, pro
blem
s, an
d ch
alle
nges
they
face
.60
.036
.73.
3
35.
Mul
timed
ia d
esig
n ut
ilise
s th
e sa
me
basi
c pr
inci
ples
of
inte
rfac
e de
sign
(as
wel
l be
note
d in
Tec
hnic
al D
esig
n St
anda
rds)
.70
.026
.73.
3
36.
Cou
rse
uses
aut
hent
ic a
nd re
al a
sses
smen
t met
hods
such
as e
-por
tfolio
and
self
asse
ssm
ent.
80.0
13.3
6.7
37.
Cou
rse
goes
thro
ugh
perio
dic
revi
ew, c
ontin
uous
eva
luat
ion,
and
cos
t and
per
form
ance
mea
sure
men
t to
ensu
re
qual
ity a
nd c
ompa
tibili
ty w
ith v
irtua
l lea
rnin
g pr
ogra
ms o
f the
inst
itutio
n.80
.020
.0-
38.
Suita
ble d
ecis
ions
are m
ade t
o im
prov
e virt
ual c
ours
e effe
ctiv
enes
s and
effic
ienc
y ac
cord
ing
to ev
alua
tion
outc
ome.
83.3
16.7
-
39.
Avai
labi
lity
of se
cure
ele
ctro
nic
syst
em fo
r sub
mitt
ing
lear
ners
’ tes
ts a
nd re
sear
ch p
aper
s.73
.326
.7-
40.
E-re
ceip
t sys
tem
to in
form
lear
ners
and
teac
hers
of c
orre
ct a
nd a
ppro
ved
subm
issi
on o
f tes
ts a
nd re
sear
ch p
aper
s.
80.0
16.7
3.3
41.
Test
E-B
ank.
76.7
23.3
-
42.
Enco
urag
e el
ectro
nic
colla
bora
tive
proj
ects
and
virt
ual t
eam
s.76
.720
.03.
3
43.
E-pu
blis
hing
for l
earn
ers a
nd te
ache
rs w
ork.
66
.730
.03.
3
1.3
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Q
ualit
y Te
chni
cal D
esig
n
1.
Put t
echn
ical
and
pre
sent
atio
nal i
nter
face
des
ign
issu
es in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
such
as s
urfin
g, li
sts,
icon
s, fo
nt si
ze a
nd
type
, con
trol t
ools
, and
log
in –
log
off V
LE to
ols.
66.7
33.3
-
2.
VLE
is li
nked
to in
stitu
tion’
s dat
abas
es su
ch a
s stu
dent
dat
abas
e sy
stem
and
aca
dem
ic re
cord
s dat
abas
e sy
stem
.66
.733
.3-
3.
VLE
is li
nked
to c
entra
l lib
rary
dat
abas
e.86
.713
.3-
4.
Web
tech
nolo
gy is
use
d to
des
ign
VLE
to a
llow
acc
ess t
o it
from
any
pla
ce.
70.0
26.7
3.3
5.
VLE
pro
gram
min
g is
com
patib
le w
ith v
arie
d op
erat
ing
syst
ems s
uch
as W
indo
ws a
nd L
inux
.76
.723
.3-
6.
Serv
er c
apac
ity is
suita
ble
with
num
ber o
f lea
rner
s in
VLE
.90
.010
.0-
7.
Each
lear
ner i
s allo
cate
d a
spac
e to
stor
e pe
rson
al fi
les a
nd d
ocum
ents
.76
.720
.03.
3
8.
VLE
con
tain
repo
sito
ry to
stor
e in
stru
ctio
nal m
ater
ials
, act
iviti
es, a
nd le
arni
ng re
sour
ces.
73
.323
.33.
3
9.
All
file
type
s with
diff
eren
t ext
ensi
ons c
an b
e up
load
ed a
nd d
ownl
oade
d.76
.723
.3-
10.
Ther
e ar
e pr
ogra
ms t
hat f
acili
tate
team
wor
k su
ch a
s e-c
alen
dar,
bulle
tin b
oard
s, an
d fo
rum
s.80
.016
.73.
3
11.
Inst
ruct
iona
l con
tent
can
be
deve
lope
d ea
sily
usi
ng u
ser f
riend
ly so
ftwar
e w
ithou
t the
nee
d fo
r prio
r pro
gram
min
g sk
ills.
76.7
20.0
3.3
12.
Avai
labi
lity
of p
rogr
ams t
o de
sign
ass
essm
ent a
nd e
valu
atio
n to
ols s
uch
as V
isua
l Cer
t Exa
m.
83.3
16.7
-
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
819Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 819 - 828 (2012)
1. Design Standards
13.
VLE
con
tain
s RSS
feed
s and
con
tent
can
be
acce
ssed
offl
ine.
83.3
16.7
-
14.
Sim
ple
user
inte
rfac
e fo
r VLE
.66
.726
.76.
7
15.
Two
diffe
rent
use
r int
erfa
ce o
ne fo
r lea
rner
s and
the o
ther
for t
each
ers s
ince
they
per
form
diff
eren
t act
iviti
es in
VLE
.76
.720
.03.
3
16.
Uni
fied
inte
rfac
e th
roug
hout
VLE
.83
.313
.33.
3
17.
Acc
essi
ble
page
des
ign
in te
rms
of f
ont s
ize
and
colu
re, c
ontro
l of
audi
o m
ater
ials
vol
ume,
con
trol o
f pi
ctur
e re
solu
tion,
and
ava
ilabi
lity
of z
oom
ing
for p
ictu
res.
73
.313
.313
.3
18.
Acc
essi
ble
desi
gn in
term
s of p
ossi
bilit
y to
upl
oad
mul
timed
ia.
76.7
16.7
6.7
19.
Hom
e pa
ge fo
r eac
h le
arne
r tha
t dis
play
info
rmat
ion
such
as d
ate
of la
st v
isit,
num
ber o
f unr
ead
repl
ies i
n a
thre
ad
s/he
star
ted,
or n
umbe
r of e
mai
ls in
box.
70.0
26.7
3.3
20.
Poss
ibili
ty to
per
sona
lize
page
s for
eac
h le
arne
r usi
ng fo
nt si
ze a
nd c
olou
r and
bac
kgro
und
27.3
23.3
3.3
21.
Spec
ial n
eeds
lear
ners
are
put
into
con
side
ratio
n w
hen
desi
gnin
g V
LE le
arne
rs su
ch a
s dys
lexi
c, c
olou
r blin
d, a
nd
shor
t sig
hted
.60
.026
.713
.3
22.
Suita
ble
size
icon
s with
cle
ar la
bels
.80
.020
.0-
23.
Cle
ar d
rop
dow
n lis
ts w
ith lo
gica
lly re
late
d ite
ms.
70.0
26.7
3.3
24.
Sync
hron
ous
and
asyn
chro
nous
com
mun
icat
ion
such
as
chat
pro
gram
s, fo
rum
s, bu
lletin
boa
rds,
emai
l, an
d vi
deo
and
audi
o co
nfer
ence
s.80
.716
.73.
3
25.
Avai
labi
lity
of se
nsor
y tra
nsfo
rmer
s suc
h as
virt
ual r
ealit
y gl
asse
s, he
lmet
s, an
d gl
oves
83.3
13.3
3.3
26.
Con
nect
and
use
dev
ices
to in
tera
ct w
ith v
irtua
l rea
lity
in V
LE s
uch
as d
ata
glov
es a
nd h
ead
mou
nted
dev
ice
and
sens
e an
d m
otio
n tra
nsfo
rmer
s.63
.326
.710
.0
27.
Each
lear
ner h
as u
niqu
e us
erna
me
and
pass
wor
d fo
r sig
ning
in V
LE.
66.7
20.0
13.3
28.
Res
trict
ed le
arne
rs’ a
cces
s to
inst
ruct
iona
l con
tent
acc
ordi
ng to
lear
ner’s
or t
each
ing
prog
ress
(lea
rner
s ar
e on
ly
allo
wed
acc
ess t
o le
sson
s tha
t hav
e be
en ta
ught
).80
.016
.73.
3
29.
Poss
ibili
ty to
trac
k le
arne
rs’ a
ctiv
ities
in V
LE to
eva
luat
e th
eir i
nter
actio
n w
ith in
stru
ctio
nal c
onte
nt.
66.7
23.3
10.0
30.
Cre
ate
back
up o
f VLE
to sa
ve it
s con
tent
from
lost
in c
ase
of se
rver
failu
re.
73.3
26.7
-
31.
Serv
er sh
ould
be
chos
en a
ccor
ding
to c
onte
nt v
olum
e, b
and
wid
th, h
oste
d fil
es i.
e. te
xt, a
udio
, vid
eo, a
nd p
ictu
re,
and
prog
ram
s exe
cute
d by
serv
er su
ch a
s Per
l Scr
ipt,
Java
Ser
ver P
ages
, Act
ive
Serv
er P
rogr
am.
83.3
16.7
-
32.
Bro
wse
r is u
sed
to a
cces
s VLE
.70
.726
.73.
3
33.
Avai
labi
lity
of m
edia
pla
yer f
or a
udio
, pic
ture
, and
text
file
s.80
.020
.0-
34.
VLE
shou
ld c
onta
in a
pla
ce to
ans
wer
que
stio
ns re
late
d to
usa
ge o
f VLE
and
virt
ual l
abor
ator
ies.
76.7
23.3
-
35.
Bro
wsi
ng ic
ons s
uppo
rt ba
ck a
nd fo
rwar
d m
ove
and
scro
lling
up
and
dow
n an
d us
ing
help
but
ton.
76.7
23.3
-
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
820 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 820 - 828 (2012)
1. Design Standards
36.
Cop
ies o
f som
e pr
ogra
ms l
earn
ers m
ight
nee
d to
bro
ws V
LE c
onte
nt su
ch a
s Fla
sh a
nd A
crob
at R
eade
r.80
.020
.0-
37.
VLE
shou
ld co
ntai
n al
l pro
gram
s lea
rner
s nee
d to
ope
rate
som
e lea
rnin
g re
sour
ces s
uch
as M
S W
ord
and
Pow
erPo
int.
70.0
26.7
3.3
38.
Ano
ther
col
our i
s use
d to
dis
tingu
ish
elec
troni
c lin
ks in
VLE
.76
.723
.3-
39.
Con
cept
s use
d in
the
cour
se a
re d
efine
d by
cre
atin
g hy
perli
nk o
n th
e w
ord
whi
ch w
ill o
pen
a sm
all p
op o
n w
indo
w
that
incl
udes
the
defin
ition
.53
.326
.720
.0
40.
Nav
igat
ion
tool
s are
des
igne
d in
sim
ple
and
easy
to u
se w
ay to
mov
e be
twee
n co
nten
t ite
ms.
53.3
43.3
3.3
41.
Use
of s
impl
e id
eatio
nal m
aps t
o pr
esen
t cou
rse
cont
ent.
70.0
76.7
3.3
42.
All
page
s con
tain
(Hom
e) ic
on.
60.0
33.3
6.7
43.
Use
pic
toria
l nav
igat
ion
tool
s suc
h as
pic
toria
l ico
ns.
83.3
13.3
3.3
44.
Red
uce
text
link
s in
one
para
grap
h to
ens
ure
non
disp
ersi
on63
.330
.06.
7
45.
Use
hyp
erlin
ks in
tabl
e of
con
tent
s and
pic
k lis
ts.
56.7
36.7
6.7
46.
Cou
rse
is d
esig
ned
to c
orre
ct a
ll op
erat
ing
and
use
mis
take
s tha
t use
rs m
ight
fall
in.
60.0
33.3
6.7
47.
Secu
rity
syst
em ag
ains
t ele
ctro
nic a
ttack
s inc
ludi
ng en
cryp
tion
of d
ata e
xcha
nged
bet
wee
n le
arne
rs an
d ed
ucat
iona
l in
stitu
tions
via
the
Inte
rnet
.73
.323
.33.
3
48.
Avai
labi
lity
of v
ideo
and
audi
o cl
asse
s cap
ture
d vi
a web
cam
s to
activ
ate c
oope
rativ
e lea
rnin
g en
viro
nmen
ts in
VLE
.66
.726
.76.
7
49.
Mai
nten
ance
and
tech
nica
l sup
port
are
cont
inuo
usly
ava
ilabl
e fo
r VLE
.73
.323
.33.
3
50.
Use
wire
less
LA
N n
etw
orks
for V
LE.
63.3
26.7
10.0
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
821Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 821 - 828 (2012)
Mai
n St
anda
rdIn
dica
tor
Deg
ree
of Im
port
ance
%
32
1
2. Standards for Quality VLE Software
1. P
rogr
ams a
re d
esig
ned
acco
rdin
g to
Inte
rnet
pro
toco
ls a
nd st
anda
rds.
70.0
26.7
3.3
2. A
vaila
bilit
y of
lear
ning
syst
ems a
nd e
duca
tiona
l con
tent
man
agem
ent s
yste
m.
73.3
23.3
3.3
3. A
vaila
bilit
y of
aut
omat
ed p
acka
ging
syst
ems a
nd st
anda
rds t
ools
.80
.016
.73.
3
4. P
repa
ratio
n of
qua
lified
tech
nica
l tea
m to
des
ign
and
deve
lop
VLE
with
coo
pera
tion
with
an
expe
rienc
ed c
onsu
ltant
. 73
.320
.06.
7
5. A
ttent
ion
is p
aid
to c
hoos
e un
com
plic
ated
syst
ems t
hat d
o no
t req
uire
radi
cal r
estru
ctur
ing
in p
rese
nt sy
stem
and
th
en d
evel
op sy
stem
func
tions
gra
dual
ly.
73.3
23.3
3.3
6. E
stab
lish
porta
l sys
tem
s tha
t can
pro
vide
and
inte
grat
e su
itabl
e se
rvic
es fo
r VLE
.76
.720
.03.
3
7. A
vaila
bilit
y of
lear
ning
reso
urce
s dat
abas
e pr
ogra
ms i
.e. h
andb
ook
prog
ram
, dow
nloa
d pr
ogra
ms,
Mic
roso
ft A
dope
R
eade
r, A
crob
at, I
nter
net E
xplo
rer a
nd N
etsc
ape.
83.3
16.7
-
8. A
vaila
bilit
y of
Ele
ctro
nic
portf
olio
pro
gram
.70
.023
.36.
7
9. G
ener
al g
uide
lines
gov
erni
ng p
rocu
rem
ent a
nd re
plac
emen
t of h
ardw
are
and
softw
are.
The
se g
uide
lines
alw
ays
ensu
re d
evel
opm
ent o
f har
dwar
e an
d so
ftwar
e.66
.726
.76.
7
10.
Effic
ient
infr
astru
ctur
e to
und
erta
ke m
aint
enan
ce a
nd re
pair
oper
atio
ns fo
r har
dwar
e an
d so
ftwar
e.76
.716
.76.
7
11.
Secu
rity
syst
em to
pro
tect
lear
ners
and
teac
hers
per
sona
l inf
orm
atio
n, a
sses
smen
t and
gra
des,
and
to p
rote
ct V
LE
from
viru
ses.
86.7
13.3
-
12.
Ada
pt v
irtua
l lea
rnin
g pr
ogra
ms w
ith th
e or
ient
atio
n an
d ai
ms o
f edu
catio
nal i
nstit
utio
ns.
83.3
16.7
-
13.
Spec
ial p
rogr
ams t
o m
anag
e V
LE a
nd re
gist
er le
arne
rs in
virt
ual l
earn
ing
cour
se, a
nd sp
ecify
acc
ess r
ight
s for
ea
ch u
ser.
76.7
23.3
-
14.
Spec
ial p
rogr
ams t
hat r
ecor
d th
e tim
e a
lear
ner n
eede
d to
ach
ieve
lear
ning
goa
ls, p
erfo
rm a
ctiv
ity, o
r con
duct
an
expe
rimen
t in
virtu
al la
b.73
.323
.33.
3
15.
Spec
ial p
rogr
ams t
o m
anag
e re
sour
ces i
n V
LE.
73.3
23.3
3.3
16.
Virt
ual l
ab p
rogr
ams c
onta
in to
ols t
hat s
uppo
rt th
e ex
perim
ent s
uch
as g
raph
s, an
imat
ion,
and
stat
istic
al a
naly
sis
softw
are.
66
.726
.76.
7
17.
Spec
ial p
rogr
am in
VLE
to d
evel
op so
cial
, beh
avio
ural
, and
act
ive
hum
an c
omm
unic
atio
n sk
ills t
o fa
ce th
e sh
ortc
omin
gs o
f virt
ual l
earn
ing.
63.3
33.3
3.3
18.
Spec
ial p
rogr
am th
at e
xpla
in e
thic
al, s
ocia
l, an
d cu
ltura
l iss
ues r
elat
ed to
ICT
use
that
is c
onsi
sten
t with
ed
ucat
iona
l ins
titut
ion
aim
s and
orie
ntat
ion.
60.0
36.7
3.3
19.
Virt
ual l
abor
ator
ies s
oftw
are
feat
ure
diffe
rent
env
ironm
ents
to u
nder
take
exp
erim
ents
such
as v
acuu
m, w
ater
, air
and
dark
env
ironm
ents
. 83
.316
.7-
20.
Virt
ual l
abor
ator
ies s
oftw
are
feat
ures
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f sel
f-as
sess
men
t dur
ing
solo
per
form
ance
of l
abor
ator
y te
sts.
83.3
16.7
-
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
822 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 822 - 828 (2012)
Mai
n St
anda
rdIn
dica
tor
Deg
ree
of Im
port
ance
%
32
1
3. Support Standards
3.1
Inst
itutio
nal S
uppo
rt
1. E
duca
tiona
l ins
titut
ion
supp
ort f
or p
rovi
ding
hig
h qu
ality
LV
E.80
.020
.0-
2.
Avai
labi
lity
of st
rong
supp
ort s
yste
m fo
r all
inpu
t, pr
oces
s, an
d ou
t put
of V
LE.
83.3
16.7
-
3.
Form
pol
icie
s and
spec
ial s
yste
m to
supp
ort t
he d
evel
opm
ent o
f virt
ual l
earn
ing
prog
ram
s in
VLE
.80
.020
.0-
4.
Suita
ble
tech
nica
l crit
eria
and
fina
ncia
l com
mitm
ent t
o V
LE so
ftwar
e.86
.713
.3-
5.
Educ
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
n m
anag
emen
t enc
oura
ges a
nd su
ppor
t virt
ual l
earn
ing
by a
ccre
ditin
g th
is m
etho
d of
le
arni
ng.
83.3
16.7
-
6.
Educ
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
n un
derta
kes i
nter
nal a
nd e
xter
nal a
udits
to re
duce
risk
rate
and
to e
nsur
e qu
ality
con
trol.
83.3
16.7
-
7.
Educ
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
n ad
opts
syst
em, p
olic
ies,
and
regu
latio
ns th
at su
ppor
t new
VLE
.76
.723
.3-
8.
Educ
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
n ad
opts
syst
ems,
polic
ies,
and
regu
latio
ns th
at su
ppor
t virt
ual e
duca
tiona
l inn
ovat
ions
.76
.720
.03.
3
9.
Prov
ide
suffi
cien
t fina
nce
to su
ppor
t VLE
syst
em a
nd o
pera
tion.
80.0
20.0
-
10.
Educ
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
n us
es a
dmin
istra
tive
acco
unta
bilit
y sy
stem
to e
nsur
e qu
ality
con
trol a
nd p
rodu
ctiv
e us
age
of
VLE
reso
urce
s.76
.723
.3-
11.
Enco
urag
e co
oper
atio
n an
d pa
rtner
ship
in re
sour
ces s
uch
as e
-libr
ary,
dis
tinct
virt
ual a
pplic
atio
ns, a
nd fa
culty
be
twee
n A
rab
virtu
al u
nive
rsiti
es th
roug
h sp
ecifi
c ty
pes o
f reg
ulat
ion
and
links
to th
ose
reso
urce
s (in
form
atio
n cl
earin
g ho
use,
ele
ctro
nic
inde
xes)
.
83.3
16.7
-
12.
Supp
ort,
com
mitm
ent,
and
cont
inuo
us c
oope
ratio
n w
ithin
edu
catio
nal i
nstit
utio
n to
wor
k w
ith sh
ared
val
ues a
nd
visi
ons t
o en
sure
succ
ess a
nd c
ontin
uous
dev
elop
men
t of q
ualit
y in
VLE
. 83
.313
.33.
3
13.
Exte
nt to
whi
ch sa
larie
s of s
uppo
rting
serv
ices
wor
kers
attr
act j
ob c
ompe
tenc
ies t
o th
e fie
ld o
f virt
ual l
earn
ing.
73.3
23.3
3.3
14.
Avai
labi
lity
of lo
ng te
rm p
lans
to d
evel
op V
LE’s
and
thei
r inf
rast
ruct
ure.
76
.720
.03.
3
3.2
Stu
dent
Sup
port
1.
M
anag
emen
t sys
tem
to p
rovi
de re
gist
ratio
n an
d ac
cept
ance
serv
ices
in V
LE.
83.3
13.3
3.3
2.
Prov
ide
lear
ners
with
cop
ies o
f the
Stu
dent
Gui
de to
intro
duce
them
to te
stin
g sy
stem
and
how
to a
nsw
er q
uest
ions
be
side
s usi
ng it
as s
tudy
skill
s gui
de.
83.3
16.7
-
3.
Esta
blis
h a
cent
re to
ass
ess l
earn
ers’
skill
s (pr
ofici
ency
ass
essm
ent)
to a
sses
s and
dev
elop
lear
ners
’ var
ied
skill
s.70
.026
.73.
3
4.
Educ
atio
nal t
echn
olog
y sp
ecia
lists
to su
ppor
t stu
dent
s and
to p
rovi
de g
uida
nce
and
solu
tion
with
rega
rd to
el
ectro
nic
reso
urce
s tec
hnol
ogy.
73.3
23.3
3.3
5.
Avai
labi
lity
of p
erso
nalis
ed le
sson
s and
mul
timed
ia v
ia V
LE.
60.0
33.3
6.7
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
823Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 823 - 828 (2012)
3. Support Standards
6.
Lay
a re
alis
tic st
rate
gy to
dev
elop
and
supp
ort s
elf l
earn
ing
and
enab
le le
arne
rs o
f con
trolli
ng th
eir e
duca
tiona
l pr
ogre
ss.
76.7
61.7
6.7
7.
Avai
labi
lity
of fu
ll an
d cl
ear i
nfor
mat
ion
for l
earn
ers r
egar
ding
the
natu
re a
nd re
quire
men
ts o
f virt
ual l
earn
ing.
In
clud
ing
info
rmat
ion
on th
e re
latio
n be
twee
n ac
hiev
emen
t, at
tain
men
t, as
sess
men
t, ac
adem
ic p
rogr
ess,
and
num
ber o
f hou
rs a
ppro
ved.
83.3
16.7
-
8.
Prov
ide
train
ing
on V
LE a
nd h
ow to
inte
ract
with
it b
y pu
blis
hing
Stu
dent
Gui
de o
n V
LE.
66.7
30.0
3.3
9.
Easy
acc
ess t
o pr
oduc
tivity
tool
s, in
tern
et se
rvic
es, i
nter
activ
e m
edia
, and
dig
ital r
esou
rces
to e
nric
h le
arni
ng a
ims
and
activ
ities
.76
.720
.03.
3
10.
Suffi
cien
t tec
hnic
al su
ppor
t to
prov
ide
mai
nten
ance
, tec
hnic
al a
ssis
tanc
e, o
pera
tion,
and
upg
radi
ng te
chni
cal
infr
astru
ctur
e.
70.0
23.3
6.7
11.
Star
t enc
oura
gem
ent a
nd in
cent
ives
syst
em su
ch a
s giv
ing
Virt
ual D
igita
l Cre
ativ
ity A
war
d.73
.326
.7-
12.
Avai
labi
lity
of fe
atur
e th
at e
nabl
es a
nsw
erin
g le
arne
rs’ q
uest
ions
on
issu
es re
late
d to
virt
ual c
ours
e.
76.7
23.3
-
13.
Avai
labi
lity
of h
elp
and
guid
ance
in a
ll V
LE p
ages
.66
.733
.3-
14.
Avai
labi
lity
of a
ssis
ting
tool
s in
virtu
al c
ours
e su
ch a
s mul
ti-la
ngua
ge d
ictio
nary
, dat
abas
es, c
alen
dar,
stat
istic
al
softw
are,
and
tran
slat
or.
63.3
36.7
-
15.
Giv
e le
arne
rs a
spac
e to
pub
lish
idea
s and
sugg
estio
ns to
thei
r tea
cher
s and
oth
er le
arne
rs w
ithou
t the
use
of e
mai
l.70
.030
.0-
16.
Avai
labi
lity
of c
olle
ctiv
e co
mm
unic
atio
n to
ols a
mon
g le
arne
rs in
VLE
.73
.323
.33.
3
17.
Avai
labi
lity
of c
onta
ctin
g te
chni
cal s
uppo
rt fo
r hel
p w
hen
acce
ssin
g th
e co
urse
.73
.323
.33.
3
18.
Dire
ctio
n an
d gu
idan
ce p
rogr
ams f
or n
ew le
arne
rs to
ens
ure
full
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
VLE
.70
.030
.0-
19.
Con
tinuo
usly
trac
k se
rvic
es p
rovi
ded
to le
arne
rs in
VLE
thro
ugh
lear
ners
satis
fact
ion
surv
ey.
80.0
20.0
-
20.
Secu
rity
softw
are
to p
rote
ct le
arne
rs’ fi
les,
reco
rds,
and
resu
lts.
80.0
16.7
3.3
21.
Rec
eive
feed
back
from
lear
ners
on
thei
r virt
ual l
earn
ing
expe
rienc
e at
the
end
of th
e co
urse
.83
.313
.33.
3
22.
Avai
labi
lity
of e
duca
tiona
l sup
port
for l
earn
ers p
rovi
ded
by te
ache
rs in
VLE
.76
.720
.03.
3
23.
Prov
ide
train
ing
cour
se fo
r lea
rner
s on
how
to u
se V
LE a
nd it
s adv
anta
ges a
nd c
hara
cter
istic
s bef
ore
com
men
cing
te
achi
ng a
ctiv
ities
. 80
.020
.0
3.3
Fac
ulty
Sup
port
1.
C
ontin
uous
pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t tra
inin
g co
urse
s and
pro
vide
s pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t res
ourc
es fo
r fa
culty
mem
bers
wor
king
with
VLE
. Tha
t is t
o en
sure
effi
cien
t use
of V
LE a
nd v
irtua
l lea
rnin
g pr
ogra
ms.
80.0
20.0
-
2.
Avai
labi
lity
of sp
ecifi
catio
ns o
f IC
T an
d pe
dago
gica
l ski
lls re
quire
d fo
r fun
ctio
ning
with
in V
LE a
nd tr
ain
facu
lty
mem
bers
on
them
.76
.723
.3-
3.
Star
t enc
oura
gem
ent a
nd in
cent
ive
syst
em to
enc
oura
ge fa
culty
in c
ontri
butin
g an
d pa
rtici
patin
g in
dev
elop
ing
VLE
.80
.020
.0-
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
824 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 824 - 828 (2012)
3. Support Standards
4.
Mea
sure
VLE
per
form
ance
and
use
ben
chm
arki
ng to
com
pare
it w
ith o
ther
VLE
’s.
73.3
26.7
-
5.
Star
t a sc
hem
e th
at fo
cus o
n im
prov
ing
facu
lty m
embe
rs’ t
alen
ts, w
iden
thei
r hor
izon
s, an
d im
prov
e th
eir
effic
ienc
y in
the
field
of v
irtua
l lea
rnin
g.73
.326
.7-
6.
Dev
elop
trai
ning
cou
rses
for f
acul
ty o
n us
ing
VLE
mat
eria
ls a
nd re
sour
ces.
76.7
23.3
-
7.
Dev
elop
crit
eria
and
indi
cato
rs o
f fac
ulty
tech
nica
l per
form
ance
in V
LE.
73.3
26.7
-
8.
Dev
elop
pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t pro
gram
s tha
t foc
us o
n ur
gent
pro
blem
s of V
LE a
nd a
re d
irect
ly re
late
d to
fa
culty
nee
ds.
80.0
20.0
-
9.
Ado
pt e
ffect
ive
asse
ssin
g m
etho
ds a
nd p
rovi
de in
form
ativ
e fe
edba
ck to
impr
ove
facu
lty p
erfo
rman
ce.
73.3
26.7
-
10.
Dev
elop
facu
lty p
erfo
rman
ce th
roug
h w
orks
hops
to im
prov
e al
l com
pone
nts o
f VLE
.73
.326
.7-
11.
Prov
ide
reso
urce
s, re
fere
nces
, dire
ctio
ns a
nd g
uida
nce
on e
ffect
ive
use
of th
e w
eb in
teac
hing
virt
ual c
ours
es.
63.3
33.3
3.3
12.
Use
ince
ntiv
es to
ass
ist t
he p
roce
ss o
f inc
reas
ing
qual
ity p
erfo
rman
ce.
70.0
20.0
10.0
13.
Supp
ort f
acul
ty m
embe
rs w
ith tu
tors
to a
ssis
t the
m in
VLE
act
iviti
es.
63.3
30.0
6.7
14.
Facu
lty a
re o
ffere
d a
chan
ce to
exp
ress
thei
r opi
nion
s on
purc
hasi
ng a
nd re
plac
ing
ICT
plan
s.73
.326
.7-
15.
Ann
ual b
udge
t for
trai
ning
facu
lty a
nd o
ther
VLE
mem
ber.
80.0
20.0
-
3.4
Tec
hnic
al S
uppo
rt
1.
Prov
ide
suffi
cien
t tec
hnic
al a
nd m
aint
enan
ce su
ppor
t to
keep
VLE
in st
ate
of re
adin
ess t
o pe
rfor
m o
pera
tions
and
ac
hiev
e ai
ms.
16.7
-
2.
Avai
labi
lity
of sp
ecia
l sec
urity
mea
sure
s i.e
. lea
rner
PIN
num
ber a
nd b
acku
p in
cas
e of
syst
em fa
ilure
.76
.723
.3-
3.
Prov
isio
n of
hum
an, a
dmin
istra
tive,
and
tech
nica
l res
ourc
es to
pro
vide
supp
ortin
g se
rvic
es. A
ccep
tabl
e ra
tio is
one
fa
culty
to 2
5 le
arne
rs.
76.7
23.3
-
4.
Trai
n an
d de
velo
p ad
min
istra
tive
and
tech
nica
l hum
an re
sour
ces t
o en
sure
and
impr
ove
qual
ity o
f per
form
ance
in
VLE
.76
.720
.03.
3
5.
Prov
isio
ns o
f virt
ual l
ibra
ries e
quip
ped
acco
rdin
g to
qua
lity
in v
irtua
l lea
rnin
g st
anda
rds.
76.7
23.3
-
6.
Prov
isio
n of
virt
ual l
abs a
nd so
ftwar
e ac
cord
ing
to q
ualit
y in
virt
ual l
earn
ing
stan
dard
s.80
.020
.0-
7.
Prov
isio
n of
suita
ble
finan
cial
supp
ort t
o op
erat
e V
LE a
nd m
aint
ain
qual
ity.
76.7
23.3
-
8.
Avai
labi
lity
of a
dmin
istra
tive
and
tech
nica
l tea
m re
spon
sibl
e fo
r mai
nten
ance
and
tech
nica
l sup
port
of h
ardw
are
and
netw
orks
in V
LE.
76.7
23.3
-
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
825Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 825 - 828 (2012)
Mai
n St
anda
rdIn
dica
tor
Deg
ree
of Im
porta
nce
%
32
1
4. Authority and Safety Standards
1. C
reat
e se
curit
y sy
stem
that
pro
tect
s sec
recy
of i
nfor
mat
ion.
80.0
20.0
-
2.
Hyp
erlin
ks li
nk to
safe
site
s tha
t do
not c
reat
e pr
oble
ms f
or o
pera
ting
syst
em a
nd b
row
ser.
83.3
16.7
-
3.
Secu
re sy
stem
that
iden
tifies
eac
h us
er to
pro
tect
con
fiden
tial i
nfor
mat
ion
from
man
ipul
atio
n an
d el
ectro
nic
espi
onag
e.80
.020
.0-
4.
Ask
for i
nfor
mat
ion
that
dis
tingu
ishe
s eac
h le
arne
r fro
m th
e ot
her.
83.3
16.7
-
5.
Mod
ifyin
g in
form
atio
n in
virt
ual c
ours
es is
not
per
mitt
ed w
ithou
t ent
erin
g le
arne
r’s u
niqu
e PI
N n
umbe
r.83
.316
.7-
6.
Virt
ual c
ours
e is
free
of v
iruse
s and
spyw
are.
83.3
16.7
-
7.
Prov
isio
n of
regu
latio
ns a
nd se
curit
y pr
otec
tion
for m
ater
ials
on
sync
hron
ous n
etw
orks
.73
.323
.33.
3
8.
Avai
labi
lity
of in
form
atio
n of
seni
or m
anag
emen
t with
job
title
for a
cade
mic
s.66
.726
.76.
7
9.
Prov
isio
n of
info
rmat
ion
on c
opyr
ight
ed m
ater
ials
in V
LE.
73.3
26.7
-
10.
Prov
isio
n of
inst
ruct
iona
l con
tent
des
igne
rs’ e
mai
ls to
faci
litat
e in
tera
ctio
n w
ith th
em.
73.3
23.3
3.3
11.
Iden
tify
the
nam
e of
the
body
or e
duca
tiona
l ins
titut
ion
that
pro
vide
s VLE
.63
.330
.06.
7
12.
List
the
nam
es o
f act
ion
team
incl
udin
g pr
ogra
mm
ers,
tech
nici
ans,
engi
neer
s, an
d ex
perts
and
stat
e th
eir
qual
ifica
tions
and
pre
viou
s exp
erie
nces
. 66
.723
.310
.0
13.
Pref
eren
ce re
sour
ces,
refe
renc
es, m
odel
s, an
d de
sign
s tha
t hav
e be
en u
sed
in d
esig
ning
VLE
.70
.026
.73.
3
14.
Ass
ess a
nd a
ccre
dit V
LE b
y ot
her a
genc
ies r
espo
nsib
le fo
r qua
lity
and
educ
atio
nal a
ccre
dita
tion.
73.3
26.7
-
15.
Con
side
r cop
yrig
ht, d
esig
n, a
nd in
telle
ctua
l pro
perty
law
s.76
.720
.03.
3
16.
Form
suita
ble
law
s and
pol
icie
s to
prot
ect c
opyr
ight
s and
inte
llect
ual p
rope
rty o
f ins
truct
iona
l con
tent
pro
duce
d by
facu
lty.
80.0
20.0
-
Amani Al-Hosan and Afnan Oyaid
826 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 826 - 828 (2012)
Mai
n St
anda
rdIn
dica
tor
Deg
ree
of Im
port
ance
%
32
1
5. Improvement and Review Standards
1. T
here
are
regu
latio
ns a
nd su
itabl
e ac
tiviti
es to
ass
ess a
nd re
view
VLE
des
ign.
83.3
13.3
3.3
2.
Ther
e is
ass
essm
ent p
roce
ss a
nd in
tern
al a
udit
for V
LE.
80.0
20.0
-
3.
Ther
e is
ext
erna
l aud
it fo
r e-le
arni
ng p
rogr
ams.
70.0
30.0
-
4.
Lear
ners
are
ask
ed fo
r the
ir op
inio
ns d
urin
g V
LE re
view
pro
cess
.66
.730
.03.
3
5.
Ther
e ar
e in
dica
tors
of d
evel
opm
ent a
nd im
prov
emen
t in
VLE
in li
ght o
f ass
essm
ent a
nd re
view
resu
lts.
66.7
30.0
3.3
6.
Ther
e ar
e in
dica
tors
of p
erio
dica
l ass
essm
ent a
nd re
view
for V
LE p
rogr
ams,
the
resu
lts a
re u
sed
for i
mpr
ovin
g V
LE.
73.3
20.0
6.7
7.
Aca
dem
ic a
nd a
dmin
istra
tive
depa
rtmen
t in
the
educ
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
n (in
clud
ing
seni
or m
anag
emen
t) pa
rtici
pate
in
impr
ovem
ents
and
qua
lity
cont
rol i
n V
LE.
80.0
20.0
-
8.
Ass
essm
ent r
epor
ts o
ffer a
hol
istic
vie
w o
n V
LE p
erfo
rman
ce in
clud
ing
all c
ompo
nent
s, pr
ogra
ms,
and
outp
ut.
They
defi
ne st
reng
ths a
nd w
eakn
esse
s and
impr
ovem
ent s
trate
gies
. 80
.020
.0-
9.
VLE
ass
essm
ent d
epen
ds o
n in
put,
proc
ess,
and
outp
ut w
ith sp
ecia
l foc
us o
n ou
tput
qua
lity.
73.3
23.3
3.3
10.
Adm
inis
tratio
n de
sign
pro
cess
es th
at e
nsur
e ac
hiev
ing
acce
ptab
le st
anda
rds a
s wel
l as e
nsur
e co
ntin
uing
im
prov
emen
t in
perf
orm
ance
.70
.030
.0-
11.
Pres
ence
of a
pro
gram
that
stud
ies a
nd a
naly
ses V
LE a
nd in
form
seni
or m
anag
emen
t sta
ff ab
out t
he q
ualit
y of
im
porta
nt a
spec
ts in
VLE
.70
.026
.73.
3
12.
Avai
labi
lity
of im
porta
nt to
ols s
uch
as q
uest
ionn
aire
s to
unde
rtake
a su
rvey
on
qual
ity o
f VLE
par
ts a
nd
com
pone
nts,
in a
spec
ific
time
fram
e fo
r rev
iew
s, as
sess
men
t, an
d re
sults
. 80
.016
.73.
3
13.
Pres
ence
of p
erio
dic
asse
ssm
ent p
roce
dure
s for
VLE
(int
erna
l and
ext
erna
l) fo
r aca
dem
ic a
ccre
dita
tion
purp
oses
.70
.030
.0-
14.
Form
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ent T
eam
with
mem
bers
from
diff
eren
t dep
artm
ents
to re
view
and
impr
ove
VLE
to e
nsur
e qu
ality
.73
.323
.33.
3
Towards Identifying Quality Assurance Standards in Virtual Learning Environments for Science Education
827Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (3): 827 - 828 (2012)
Mai
n St
anda
rdIn
dica
tor
Deg
ree
of Im
port
ance
%
32
1
6. VLE Cost-Effectiveness Standards
1.
Find
low
pric
es fo
r Int
erne
t con
nect
ion
by m
akin
g us
e of
com
petit
ion
betw
een
Inte
rnet
pro
vidi
ng c
ompa
nies
.73
.323
.33.
3
2.
Incr
ease
effi
cien
cy a
nd c
ompe
tenc
y of
VLE
and
redu
ce d
rop
out r
ate.
73.3
23.3
3.3
3.
The
retu
rn v
alue
of d
esig
ning
and
pub
lishi
ng a
cou
rse
is c
omm
ensu
rate
with
the
cost
.70
.026
.73.
3
4.
Ther
e is
no
fee
for u
sing
virt
ual c
ours
es.
70.0
20.0
10.0
5.
Acc
ess
to w
ebsi
tes
and
reso
urce
s re
late
d to
the
cour
se is
free
.70
.020
.010
.0
6.
Poss
ibili
ty to
upl
oad
free
reso
urce
s an
d as
sist
ing
prog
ram
s th
at v
irtua
l cou
rse
files
nee
ds to
ope
rate
.73
.323
.33.
3
7.
Spec
ialis
ed d
epar
tmen
t tak
e on
the
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
adm
inis
tratin
g an
d su
perv
isin
g th
e bu
dget
and
acc
ount
s fo
r VLE
.70
.030
.0-
8.
Form
a c
omm
ittee
to re
view
law
s, re
gula
tions
, aca
dem
ic, a
dmin
istra
tive
and
finan
cial
pro
cedu
res
in V
LE.
76.7
23.3
-
9.
Ava
ilabi
lity
of a
ccou
ntin
g an
d fin
anci
al s
yste
m to
ens
ure
qual
ity in
VLE
.86
.713
.3-
10.
Exte
nt to
whi
ch c
osts
and
exp
ense
s of
VLE
are
equ
al to
thos
e of
oth
er A
rab
and
Inte
rnat
iona
l virt
ual
univ
ersi
ties.
80.0
16.7
3.3
11.
Exte
nt to
whi
ch a
ll co
mpo
nent
s of
VLE
inve
st it
s fin
anci
al, m
ater
ial,
and
hum
an re
sour
ces.
83.3
16.7
-
Recommended