E-LEARNING QUALITY CONTROL FRAMEWORK STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

Soetam Rizky Wicaksono Ma Chung University Villa Puncak Tidar N-01 East , Indonesia [email protected]

Abstract The implementation of e-learning in higher education based upon assumption that e-learning can help lecturers improving student learning motivation. However, e-learning that has been running often no longer cared whether it has been able to meet the required needs in instructional learning process. So, it is a must to have quality control which e-learning can be maintained for its quality and keep its innovation for instructional learning process. Research conducted in this paper is devoted to quality control framework on e-learning in the scope of Indonesia’s higher education. This research main cause is the quality control framework of e-learning now diversing, while implementation of e-learning in Indonesia is still in the stages of socialization and existence. So, the existing quality control framework is being reviewed in order to be more appropriate for Indonesia higher education environment generically. The results of this study are expected to be the initial proposal for a framework for quality assurance systems for e-learning in Indonesia higher education. Therefore, in future studies, it can develop new framework of the quality assurance systems of e-learning that can be applied generically.

Keywords: e-learning,quality control, higher education

INTRODUCTION E-learning usage in higher education environment nowadays is no longer become improvement, since that e-learning has already become need for most university. EDUCAUSE research in 2011, has announced report that 99 % from 2500 universities sample from 18 countries has already implemented e-learning (EDUCAUSE, 2012). Thus, it proves that e-learning is really become common thing in higher education. However, misunderstanding concept about e-learning implementation is that most of university focused on course material repository or discussion forum. Thus, many lecturers and also students becoming sceptical about e-learning, and its function merely become obligatory task for them rather than improvement effort for learning process (Al- Shboul & Alsmadi, 2010; Cole, 2009; Burgess, 2003). On the other hand, many students which come from net generation today, admit that using e-learning can leverage their motivation in learning process (Cole, 2009; Finger, Sun, & Jamiesen-Proctor, 2010; Singh, O’Donoghue, & Worton, 2005; Weller, 2002). So, it means that e-learning really need a restrict control in order to keep its function on the righ track. In order to keep the e-learning is in the right track, it will need certain quality control inside it. While e-learning in higher education environment, especially in Indonesia, mostly still in development and implementation stage, its quality control often being ignored. However, without good quality control, e-learning will back to obligatory task rather than learning improvement. This is the main reason why e-learning quality control is important today.

424 || PROSIDING 2016 Inovasi Pendidikan di ERa Big Data dan Aspek PSIKOLOGINYA || 425 E-learning quality control has been described by some of researcher, such as from UWS (University of Western Sydney), which mention that e-learning quality depend on its development, supporting staff and advanced standard (Ireland, Correia, & Griffin, 2009). However, quality control standard should be different between each country, and more specific is different between each university. It happened because their e-learning condition are completely different, whether its level or its environment. Thus, this study tries to redescribe e-learning quality control framework in higher education environment, specifically in Indonesia. This study merely focus on initial framework which should be develop further more using empirical research. So, its result based upon literature study rather than survey. Moreover, once again, it should be redevelop using quantitative research in the future.

E-Learning Quality perspective The term of quality, in higher education environment, is defined as conformance to standard or specification (Green, 1994). However, the term of standard is bias and always different based upon the product or services. In education services, standard can be assessed according to need and who the customers are. Thus, quality itself can be relative and value-laden concept and maybe viewed differently by various stakeholders (Jung, 2010). More explicitly, quality in e-learning only described as effort to simply get something up and running (MacDonald & Thompson, 2005). It means that for most institution, having e-learning that can be accessed by students and lecturers are already reflected great effort for them to leverage their learning process. On the other hand, quality in e-learning can be seen from perspective of seven quality dimensions that already empirically surveyed, which are: institutional support, course development, course structure, teaching and learning, student support, faculty support, and evaluation and assessment (Jung, 2010). In that research, some of factors which are considered as important are: (1) national accreditation, (2) interaction, (3) staff support, (4) learner support, and (5) information and publicity online. Those factor are compressed from more than 60 factors which are identified earlier. It means that in term of internal assesment, many students merely concern about how e-learning are published and fulfilling national standard rather than considering its content or its evaluation model. However, in Indonesia higher education, there is still no national accreditation which is specifically targetting e-learning. So, national accreditation factor will be eliminated in framework design later. Second perspective of e-learning quality is seen from four components, which are: (1) instructional design, (2) content reviewed, (3) course delivery which is monitored by staff and lecturer and (4) impact which is measured by feedback and external review (TInker, 2001). This perspective different from previous one, because of its perspective focused on internal view rather than external view. For example, monitoring course

426 || PROSIDING 2016 Inovasi Pendidikan di ERa Big Data dan Aspek PSIKOLOGINYA || 427 delivery by staff and lecturer is prefer to be done rather than following external standard such as national accreditation. It also focused on internal impact of e-learning for students and lecturer rather assesing students’ support. Third reviewed perspective of e-learning quality is called DDLM (Demand Driving Learning Model) which emphasize four main components in e-learning quality assurance (MacDonald & Thompson, 2005), which are: (1) structure, which includes pedagogical strategies, learning environment and evaluation, (2) content of e-learning, (3) services, which includes resources, administration and technical support, accessibility and responsiveness, also (4) outcomes that should have lower cost for learner, staff and lecturer. This perspective similar as previous one, since that highlight better for internal view, for example, lower cost for staff and also pedagogical strategy.

E-learning Quality framework Based upon three different view of e-learning quality, then we should take a look one by one and try to comfort them into what really happened in Indonesia higher education environment nowadays. First of all, since that Indonesia government through Higher Education General Council (DIKTI) has not been created any national standard or accreditation for e-learning, then we can eliminate first factor from first perspective. Still in the first perspective, we can still includes staff and learner support also interaction as quality framework components for e-learning. All of those components are considered as internal factors from e-learning and can affect e-learning performance overall. While the last component from this perspective is information and publicity online, is not necessary in Indonesia higher education. Since that most of Indonesia higher education’s e-learning are still in the stage of inisiation rather than stage of publication. Second perspective which has four components are relevant with e-learning condition in Indonesia. Such as instructional design, which is likely ignored by most lecturer when they entering e-learning. Most of lecturers merely upload their course material or lecture notes’ presentation and let the students downloading them. However, it should have evaluation and also assesment in it as conformance and standard in instructional process. Thus, all the components can be included in quality control framework. Third and last perspective contains four components which are also similar from previous perspective. However, last component from this perspective has different point of view which mentioned about lower cost for e-learning outcomes. This last component is very interesting, since that most of e-learning implementation in Indonesia still considered as expensive plan for most higher education environment, while just a little amount of university consider it as cheap and easy. So, this last component definitely become one of important factor in quality framework. After reviewing all of the perspective, we can have a simple fishbone diagram in order to justify our first attempt in quality framework proposal. The diagram shown in figure 1.

426 || PROSIDING 2016 Inovasi Pendidikan di ERa Big Data dan Aspek PSIKOLOGINYA || 427 First Perspective Second Perspective

National accreditation Content review Interaction Instructional Design

Staff support Course delivery learner support Impa ct Information and publicity online Quality Control Framework Structure

Content of e-learning

Services

outcome

Figure 1: First Fishbone Diagram

As we can see that some of components are closely related each other and also have similar function in controlling quality of e-learning. For example is component staff support and learner support from first perspective are similar with course delivery from second perspective and services from third perspective. Thus, we should have another diagram to modify the first fishbone into new proposed framework as shown in figure 2.

Quality Control Framework

Figure 2. Modified Framework Diagram

Afterward, we can see glimpse of proposed framework which already modified into new one. Next, we will map and get more detail for this proposed framewok, based upon each major component. Whole previous perspectives have already had their own detail survey based questions. Then, we will try to combine and mix into new proposed framework. As we can see, there are three major component in internal implementation of e-learning, which are: lecturers, students and e-learning administrator. E-learning administrator can also be lecturer who already has great awareness about IT or lecturer who has been pointed as supervisor for e-learning implementation. Thus, administrator should also become main actor in quality control activity, since that he also responsible in e-learning daily operational.

428 || PROSIDING 2016 Inovasi Pendidikan di ERa Big Data dan Aspek PSIKOLOGINYA || 429 From the first major component, students, we can split modified framework diagram as four quality control components, which are: (1) student support, that should explain how student can afford e-learning, from its access, and also scalability platform, (2) interaction, that should explain how student can be active learner in an e-learning, not merely become downloader and passive audience, (3) impact, that should explain e-learning effect during learning process for student, whether it just become supporting action, major impact or just become useless, and (4) outcome, that should explain last outcome from e-learning and it must be not in quantitative measurement, since that outcome can not only measured based upon students’ grade, but it should also measured by their satisfaction. Second component is lecturer, that can explained into these sub component: (1) lecturer support, that should explain how lecturer really can optimize e-learning rather than only uploading their course material or lecturer notes, (2) content, which explain that content in e-learning really must support and relevant with its course, (3) instructional design, that should explain what kind of instructional design which already implemented by lecturer, so e-learning really must have innovation and improvement inside it, and (4) structure, that should explain how learning environment and evaluation affect lecturer in e-learning activity, such as university infrastructure and internet connection. Last component is administrator component, that has three sub component which are: (1) course delivery, that should explain how monitoring process done for lecturers and students in e-learning activity, (2) content review, which should explain how content being reviewed, whether only reviewing its proper format for e-learning, or it also reviewing whole content inside, and (3) services, which explain how e-learning environment and infrastructure can really supporting e-learning and how it provided by university. All of the explanation of components and its sub component should become main cause for quality controller in e-learning to create further questions in his survey. However, since that this framework already proposed as generic, it should have different detail questions for each environment. Based upon previous explanation, we try to summarize the result into new hierarchical diagram as shown in figure 3.

Course Delivery Content Review Services

Administrator Component

Student Support Interaction Lecturer Support Cont ent

Impact Outcome Instructional Design Structure

Student Component Lecturer Component

Figure 3. Quality Control Framework

428 || PROSIDING 2016 Inovasi Pendidikan di ERa Big Data dan Aspek PSIKOLOGINYA || 429 Conclusion While this study simply includes three perspective of quality control, it should have fulfil initial need of quality control framework for e-learning. Whole view which can be generically changed based upon each places condition and situation. On the other hand, this quality control framework, merely focused on internal evaluation, rather than external evaluation. Focusing on internal need should create self awareness for e-learning administrator and actors, such as lecturer and students. Thus, it can focus improvement and also development for better e-learning in the future. This should also emphasize that quality control activity is not about judgement and punishment, however, it should create new direction if needed or overhauling what has already happened. This framework also must be tested upon some universities in order to get better framework in the future. Empirical test will be done in the next research, since that the activity will need bigger effort. It also need another study from another perspective in order to get broader view of framework component.

REFERENCES Al-Shboul, D. M., & Alsmadi, D. I. (2010, June). Challenges Of Utilizing E-Learning Systems In Public Universities In Jordan. iJET, 5(2). Burgess, L. A. (2003). WebCT as an E-Learning Tool: A Study of Technology’s Students Perception. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 6-15. Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki Technology to Support Student Engagement: Lessons from the Trenches. Computer & Education, 52, hal 141-146. EDUCAUSE. (2012). The 2011 ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology Infographic. Retrieved September 20, 2012, from EDUCAUSE: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/EIG1103.pdf Finger, G., Sun, P.-C. S., & Jamiesen-Proctor, R. (2010). Emerging Frontiers of Learning Online: Digital Ecosystems, Blended Learning and Implications for Adult Learning. In T. T. Kidd, & J. Keengwe, Adult Learning in The Digital Age. IGI Global. Green, D. (1994). What Is Quality in Higher Education? Bristol: Taylor and Francis. Ireland, J., Correia, H. M., & Griffin, T. M. (2009). Developing quality in e-learning: a framework in three parts. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 250-263. Jung, I. (2010). The dimensions of e-learning quality: from the learner’s perspective. Education Tech Research Dev. MacDonald, C. J., & Thompson, T. L. (2005, July). Structure, Content, Delivery, Service, and Outcomes: Quality e-Learning in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(2), 1-25. Singh, G., O’Donoghue, J., & Worton, H. (2005). A Study Into The Effects Of eLearning On Higher Education. Journal of University Teaching & LearningPractice, 2(1), 14-24. TInker, r. (2001). E-Learning Quality: The Concord Model for Learning from a Distance. NASSP Bulletin, 85(6), 36-46. Weller, M. (2002). Delievering Learning on the Net: the why, what & how of online education. London: Routledge Falmer.

430 || PROSIDING 2016 Inovasi Pendidikan di ERa Big Data dan Aspek PSIKOLOGINYA || 431