1. bookVolume 22 (2019): Issue 2 (December 2019)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Inter-Learner Communication and Collaborative Learning as Quality Criteria of Distance Vocational Education and Training

Published Online: 24 Jan 2020
Volume & Issue: Volume 22 (2019) - Issue 2 (December 2019)
Page range: 98 - 112
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Distance web-based VET is nowadays of utmost importance for the EU. But, its special characteristics create doubts, as far as its quality is concerned, so research in this field is essential. According to the theoretical background, teaching methods and specifically, inter-learner communication and collaborative learning, are related to quality assurance. However, they are not always included in quality criteria nor is their use widespread in Greek distance VET. The aim of the research was to compare learner views with EU policy on the inclusion of inter-learner communication and collaborative learning in quality criteria. A qualitative research design was used to investigate EU quality assurance policy and frameworks. According to the findings, inter-learner communication is included in seven EU quality assurance frameworks, while collaborative learning in five of them. Learners have the same opinion about collaborative learning, but inter-learner communication is not as widely accepted as it is by EU organizations. However, from both perspectives, there is a stronger preference for distance inter-learner communication.

Keywords

1. Alexander, S., & Golja, T. (2007). Using students’ experiences to derive quality in an e-learning system: an institution’s perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 17-33. Search in Google Scholar

2. Baldwin, S., & Trespalacios, J. (2017). Evaluation instruments and good practices in online education. Online Learning, 21(2). Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/91310.24059/olj.v21i2.913 Search in Google Scholar

3. Claus, E., & Dooley, K. (2005). Quality in distance education: A preliminary review of the literature. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492449.pdf Search in Google Scholar

4. Collardyn, D., & Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non-formal and informal learning: Policy and practices in EU member states. European Journal of Education, 39(1), 69-89.10.1111/j.0141-8211.2004.00167.x Search in Google Scholar

5. Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality – An account of the EFQUEL MOOC Quality Project. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 3, 78-87. Search in Google Scholar

6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Search in Google Scholar

7. DeGennaro, D. (2010). Grounded in theory: Immersing pre-service teachers in technology-mediated learning. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 338-359. Search in Google Scholar

8. EADTU (2012). E-xcellence Next. Quality assessment for e-learning: a benchmarking approach. Maastricht: EADTU. Search in Google Scholar

9. EADTU (2016). E-xcellence. Quality assessment for e-learning: a benchmarking approach. Maastricht: EADTU. Search in Google Scholar

10. ECB Check (2012). Open ECB Check quality criteria for programmes. Retrieved from http://www.ecb-check.net/downloads/ Search in Google Scholar

11. Ehlers, U. (2004). Quality in e-learning from a learner’s perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2004(1). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?p=archives&sp=full&article=101 Search in Google Scholar

12. Ellis, R., & Calvo, R. (2007). Minimum indicators to assure quality of LMS-supported blended learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 60-70. Search in Google Scholar

13. European Commission (2018). Proposal for a council recommendation on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the European dimension of teaching, COM (2018) 023 final. Search in Google Scholar

14. Garrison, R. (2000). Quality and access in distance education: Theoretical considerations. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 9-21). New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

15. Gunawardena, C., & McIsaak, M. (2004). Distance education. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communities and technology (pp.355-395). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

16. Inglis, Α. (2005). Quality improvement, quality assurance and benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 6(1).10.19173/irrodl.v6i1.221 Search in Google Scholar

17. Jacobs, L., & DeWet, C. (2013). Evaluation of the Vocational Education Orientation Programme (VEOP) at a University in South Africa. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 68-89.10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1568 Search in Google Scholar

18. Jung, Ι. (2012). Asian learners’ perception of quality in distance education and gender differences. The International Review in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 1-25.10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1159 Search in Google Scholar

19. Kear, K., Rosewell, J., & Keith, W. (2012). Social networking and open educational resources: Updating quality assurance for e-learning excellence. Paper presented at the EADTU 25th Anniversary Conference “The Role of Open and Flexible Education in European Higher Education Systems for 2020: New Models, New Markets, New Media”, 27-28 September 2012, Paphos, Cyprus. Search in Google Scholar

20. Kidd, T., & Song, H. (2007). A case study of the adult learners’ perception of instructional quality in web-based online courses. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Online education for lifelong learning (pp. 271-291). Hershey: Information Science Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

21. Lenert, K., & Janes, D. (2017). The incorporation of quality attributes into online course design in higher education. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 32(1). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/987/1660 Search in Google Scholar

22. Letherby, G., & Bywaters, P. (2007). Extending social research: why? In G. Letherby & P. Bywaters (Eds.), Extending social research. Application, implementation and publication (pp. 19-36). Glasgow: Open University Press, McGraw Hill. Search in Google Scholar

23. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386 Search in Google Scholar

24. Merisotis, J., & Phipps, R. (2000). Quality on the line. Benchmarks for success in internet based distance education. Washington: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Search in Google Scholar

25. MOOQ. International organizations supporting the quality initiative MOOQ. Retrieved from http://www.mooc-quality.eu/survey Search in Google Scholar

26. Moore, M. G. (2000). Transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

27. Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 66-85). New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

28. Mystakidis, S., Kostopoulos, K., & Amanatidis, E. (2017). Preconditions for quality distance vocational training: The case of the Patras University Center for Vocational Education and Training. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference in Open & Distance Learning, November 2017, Athens, Greece. Search in Google Scholar

29. Official Journal of the European Union (2014). European Parliament resolution of 15 April 2014 on new technologies and open educational resources, 2017/C 443/05. Search in Google Scholar

30. Official Journal of the European Union (2017). Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on inclusion in diversity to achieve a high quality education for all, 2017/C 62/02. Search in Google Scholar

31. OpenupEd. OpenupEd Quality Label. Retrieved from http://www.openuped.eu/quality-label/ Search in Google Scholar

32. Ossiannilsson, E. (2012). Quality enhancement on e-learning. Campus-wide Information Systems, 29(4), 312-323.10.1108/10650741211253903 Search in Google Scholar

33. Ossiannilsson, E., & Landgren, L. (2012). Quality in e-learning – Α conceptual framework based on experiences from three international benchmarking projects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 42-51.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00439.x Search in Google Scholar

34. Peres, P., Lima, L., & Lima, V. (2014). B-learning quality: Dimensions, criteria and pedagogical approach. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 17(1), 56-75.10.2478/eurodl-2014-0004 Search in Google Scholar

35. Read, T., & Rodrigo, C. (2014). Toward a quality model for UNED MOOCs. eLearning Papers, 37, 43-50. Search in Google Scholar

36. Reis, R., Gomes, T., & Reis, B. (2008). Learning management systems in vocational schools. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 8(5), 580-590. Search in Google Scholar

37. ReΟpen. About the project. Retrieved from http://www.reopen.eu/about-project/ Search in Google Scholar

38. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

39. Rogers, A. (2002). Teaching adults. Berkshire: Open University Press. Search in Google Scholar

40. Rosewell, J., & Jansen, D. (2014). The OpenupEd Quality Label: Benchmarks for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 3, 88-100. Search in Google Scholar

41. SEQUENT (2015). Supporting Quality in e-learning European Networks – SEQUENT. Retrieved from http://www.enqa.eu/index.php/supporting-quality-in-e-learning-european-networks-sequent/ Search in Google Scholar

42. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

43. Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33. Search in Google Scholar

44. Ubachs, G. (2009). E-xcellence. Quality assessment for e-learning: a benchmarking approach. Heerlen: EADTU. Search in Google Scholar

45. UNIQUe (2011). European Universities Quality in e-Learning. Information package. Brussels: EFQUEL. Search in Google Scholar

46. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Gaurain & Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp.34-40). New York: Scientific American Books. Search in Google Scholar

47. Wang, Y. C. (2014). Using wikis to facilitate interaction and collaboration among EFL learners: A social constructivist approach to language teaching. System, 42(1), 383-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.00710.1016/j.system.2014.01.007 Search in Google Scholar

48. Ward, M., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 57-77.10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.867 Search in Google Scholar

49. Williams, K. (2015). SEQUENT. Deliverable 4, Handbook for quality in e-learning procedures. Retrieved from https://www.sequent-network.eu/images/Guidelines/Sequent_Handbook_for_Quality_in_e-learning_procedures.pdf Search in Google Scholar

50. Yeung, D. (2001). Toward an effective quality assurance model of web-based learning: The perspective of academic staff. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter44/yeung44.html Search in Google Scholar

51. Yerevan Communiqué (2015). EHEA Ministerial Conference, Yerevan Communiqué 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf Search in Google Scholar

52. Zawacki-Richter, O., Baker, E., & Vogt, S. (2009). Review of distance education research (2000 to 2008): Analysis of research areas, methods and authorship patterns. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 21-50.10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.741 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo