guidelines for the development of a quality assurance (qa) framework for open, distance and...

Click to edit Master title style

• Click to edit Master text styles

• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level

African Virtual University

Guidelines for the Development Guidelines for the Development of a of a

Quality Assurance (QA) Quality Assurance (QA) Framework for Open, Distance Framework for Open, Distance

and eLearning Programmesand eLearning Programmes

AVU Quality Assurance Framework Workshop15 May 2014

Nairobi, Kenya



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


Workshop GoalsWorkshop Goals

1. To build consensus for the basic QA ODeL Guidelines through open discussions, deliberation, and constructive commentary and feedback.

2. To ensure that the Guidelines provide a set of minimum QA parameters that are flexible and adaptive for the Partner institutions to meet a) institutional needs and b) accrediting and regulatory agency QA standards in each partner nation for new and existing ODeL programs.

3. To ensure the Guidelines ‘complement’ existing QA policies and structures at the Partner institutions consistent with national accrediting and regulatory bodies.



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


ObjectivesObjectives

• Discuss the draft Quality Assurance Framework developed by the AVU and provide input for its alignment with existing QA of National Regulatory bodies and regional QA bodies

• Make recommendations for its recognition by the National Regularity bodies

• Make recommendations for its adoption by the AVU partner institutions

• Make recommendations for its approval by the AVU Board of Directors

• Make recommendations for the accreditation of AVU programs by National Regulatory Bodies and Regional QA bodies



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


Why Designate the QA Framework for ODeL as ‘Guidelines’?Why Designate the QA Framework for ODeL as ‘Guidelines’?

As an interinstitutional, multi-national partnership, these guidelines are intended to provide maximum flexibility and adaptability to meet local institutional needs and comply with national regulatory agencies, accrediting commissions, and institutional QA mechanisms already in place at the respective institutions.

The document has been designated as a set of ‘Guidelines’ to recognize that each partner institution must have the flexibility to adapt these to national and institutional needs for ensuring quality in ODeL programs.



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


Background and ContextBackground and Context

• AVU recognizes the QA authority and oversight responsibilities of the national regulatory agencies and accrediting bodies and that these agencies are independent from universities.

• The Guidelines, building off the Phase I Project, will be a comprehensive QA approach rather than program by program.

• Partner institutions are critical to building consensus around the Guidelines to ensure consistency with existing institutional QA systems and accrediting/regulatory bodies in the respective nations.

• The Guidelines, building upon the Commonwealth of Learning QA Toolkit, are based upon international best practices in ODeL quality assurance standards.

• The Guidelines are designed to be flexible and adaptive to the unique cultural, social, ethnic, political, economic, and educational context of Africa and African Higher Education.



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


QA Framework Criteria QA Framework Criteria

Criterion 1: Institutional Policies and Mission

Criterion 2: Program Design and Development

Criterion 3: Course Design and Development

Criterion 4: Learning Infrastructure and Resources

Criterion 5: Learner Support and Evaluation

Criterion 6: Learner Assessment and Evaluation



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


Criterion ComponentsCriterion Components

• Criteria standards are based upon global best practices used in HE open, distance and eLearning programs.

• Performance Indicators (PIs) – Specific indicators for measuring performance of each criteria standard.

• Evidence – direct documents/policies that demonstrate validation of the performance indicators

• Performance Measure is an evaluative assessment that the criteria standard successfully or unsuccessfully meets the standard. A marginal rating would be considered a minimum level of competency towards meeting the criterion standard.



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


Value-Added Benefits of the GuidelinesValue-Added Benefits of the Guidelines

• Criterions 1 and 2 integrate key standards, PIs, and evidence samples that cover both the institution QA arena as well as individual academic programs delivered via ODeL. This suggests a clear recognition from ODL global best practices that program and institutional QA processes need to complement each other – not exist as separate processes. Moreover, well developed QA Frameworks at the institutional level that align with the program QA processes provide greater consistency and flexibility for meeting minimum standards set by regulatory agencies and accrediting bodies.

• The Self-Assessment capacity of the Guidelines allows either a comprehensive or specific review of a relevant criterion. For example, a program-institution may have very well developed student support services but need considerable improvement in the quality processes for assessing student performance in ODeL programs. Thus, focusing on a high need area like assessment could be carried out by the institution-program.

• The flexibility and adaptability of the Guidelines provide a sound starting point in unique partnership programs such as the AVU Multi-National Project. This allows partners to set the baseline criterions and minimum competencies for existing and future ODeL interinstitutional program partnerships.



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


Key QuestionsKey Questions

• What role does AVU play in the administration, coordination, and inventory of these guidelines for partner institutions?

• Given the diversity and needs of partner institutions and national QA agencies, is it feasible (and realistic) that one set of Guidelines can meet these needs?

• What are the critical next steps for moving forward?



• Second level

• Third level

• Fourth level

• Fifth level


Innovative Approaches to ODeL Quality AssuranceInnovative Approaches to ODeL Quality Assurance