Perspective Article

Open distance and e-learning (ODeL) assessment indicators for quality learning

Evans Lifuka 1 *
More Detail
1 Mukuba University, Garneton, ZAMBIA* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Professional Development, Learners and Learning, 7(1), January 2025, e2505, https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/15733
Submitted: 19 July 2024, Published Online: 30 December 2024, Published: 01 January 2025
OPEN ACCESS   175 Views   106 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This paper is aimed at identifying indicators of open distance and e-learning (ODeL) assessment for quality learning in higher education. The demand for university education in higher learning institutions has continued to grow and hence there has been a phenomenal expansion in enrolments that are not matching with the expansion of facilities. As institutions of higher learning step up to offer their academic programmes by ODeL mode of instructional delivery, there are concerns from stakeholders about the quality of the certificates and degree awards. This can be attributed to inadequate quality assurance standards to assess the quality and value of ODeL academic programmes. The concept of quality, in general, is debated to a high extent, even though it is a common word, it is not a well-understood concept and is defined differently by different individuals in different contexts at different points in time. The implications of poorly assessed students in most cases result in half-baked graduates who may fail to grasp the concepts, skills and knowledge in their area of specialization. On the same score, it is envisaged that the process of assessment requires students’ full engagement with clearly explained criteria that includes peer-reviewing of each other’s work and the necessary support that is provided to the students on the programme. The process of assessment is an iterative process and benefits both the lecturers and students. Although assessment demands a synergetic approach by all the players in the delivery of a programme, there are other critical indicators of assessment that promote quality teaching, and these must be taken into serious considerations. Therefore, the paper contends that there are various indicators of ODeL assessment for quality learning. Additionally, the paper presents Evans’ assessment tool (EAT framework) that could be used to improve quality e-assessment feedback of ODeL and move away from the more traditional methods of providing feedback to the learners under this mode.
Keywords: ODeL, assessment indicators, open and distance learning, e-learning, quality learning, formative assessment, summative assessment

CITATION (APA)

Lifuka, E. (2025). Open distance and e-learning (ODeL) assessment indicators for quality learning. International Journal of Professional Development, Learners and Learning, 7(1), e2505. https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/15733

REFERENCES

  1. Ansari, M. (2002). Best practices in open and distance learning systems in India: An assessment. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 11, 219–228.
  2. Aoki, K. (2012). Generations of distance education: Technologies, pedagogies, and organisations. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 55, 1183–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.613
  3. Chaudhary, S. V. S., & Dey, N. (2013). Assessment in open and distance learning system (ODL): A challenge. Open Praxis, 5(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.3.65
  4. Ehlers, U. D., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2006). Quality in European e-learning: An introduction. In U. D. Ehlers, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on quality and standardization in e-learning (pp. 1–13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32788-6_1
  5. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
  6. Evans, C. (2015). Innovative pedagogical practices: The personal learning styles pedagogy. Higher Education Academy.
  7. Evans, C. (2016). Enhancing assessment feedback practice in higher education: The EAT framework. University of Southampton. https://www.southampton.ac.uk
  8. Gilbert, J. (2004). The RoutledgeFalmer reader in science education. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203464090
  9. Hildén, R., Oscarson, A., Yıldırım, A., & Fröjdendahl, B. (2022). Swedish and Finnish pre-service teachers’ perceptions of summative assessment practices. Languages, 7(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7010010
  10. Hollins, M (2011). ASE guide to secondary science education. The Association for Science Education.
  11. Kulasegaram, K., & Rangachari, P. K. (2018). Beyond “formative”: Assessments to enrich student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00122.2017
  12. Letseka, M., & Pitsoe, V. (2013). Reflections on assessment in open distance learning (ODL): The case of the University of South Africa (UNISA). Open Praxis, 5(3), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.3.66
  13. Nikiforova, A. (2020). Definition and evaluation of data quality: User-oriented data object-driven approach to data quality assessment. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 8(3), 391–432. https://doi.org/10.22364/bjmc.2020.8.3.02
  14. Oliver, R. (2003). Exploring benchmarks and standards for assuring quality online teaching and learning in higher education. Edith Cowan University Publication.
  15. Sabur, M. A. (2015). Total quality management as a tool for decision making. Asian Business Review, 3, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.18034/abr.v3i4.288
  16. Vroeijenstijn, T. (2004). International network for quality assurance agencies in higher education: Principles of good practice for an EQA agency. Quality in Higher Education, 10(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832242000195851
  17. Williams, K., Kear, K., & Rosewell, J. (2012). Quality assessment for e-learning: A benchmarking approach. EADTU.