8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

1/39

Suggested view of virtual Learning Environments (VLE) for science education in light of

total quality standards

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1 :Science virtual learning environment dimensions.

Figure 2: Proposed visual design for the virtual science learning environment in light of total

quality standards

Figure 3 :The percentage of the relative importance of VLE main standards

Figure 4 :Percentages of the relative importance of VLE subsidiary standards

Table 1: The frequencies and percentages of the relative importance of VLE main standards

arranged according to importance

Table 2: The frequencies and percentages of the relative importance of VLE subsidiary standards

arranged according to importance

Appendix: The Frequencies and Percentage of all of the Main and Subsidiary Standards of the

VLEs Standard From, In Light of Total Quality Standards.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

2/39

2

Suggested view of virtual Learning Environments (VLE) for science education in light of total

quality standards

Abstract

The Standardisation of e-learning has became a fundamental issue because universities and institutions

which use e-learning and virtual learning cannot be accredited without subjecting them to quality

standards. This research sought to determine proposed standards for VLE in all branches of natural

sciences, including chemistry, physics, and biology, in the light of total quality standards. The study

developed a scheme of six main standards with a three-phased scale to determine the importance of each

scale. Each of the main and sub-standards includes indicators that describe the highest level of standard

performance. The study utilised a purposive sampling technique. The sample included experts in Saudi,

other Arab states, and European universities in different specialties. The findings indicate that the

application of quality standards in VLE of science education is necessary to enable global competition in

the field of education. In addition, the proposed standards are suitable for application as participants

identified most of the indicators as high in importance.

Keywords: virtual learning environments, total quality, standards, science education, virtual

environments

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

3/39

3

Introduction

A learning environment is here defined as the group of circumstances and factors with which learners

interact, and which affect them, and which characterizes the educational situation and gives it its

uniqueness. Research has proved that the learning environment affects the learner according to the

degree of its authenticity. However, when it is difficult to provide this, simulated environments are the

most suitable alternatives (Khamees 2003).

Technological innovations have made it possible to design simulated learning environments using

computers that may sometimes surpass the real, natural environments, using simulation and virtual

reality which have become established during the last ten years (Hamit 1993; Helsel 1992). Virtual

reality is interactive as it responds to user's actions and behaviour. In fact, it provides a degree of

interaction that is not available 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 of individuals

(Chow, Andrews, & Trueman 2007). It also can offer a developed individualized learning experience to

fulfill the educational needs of specific students to suit their own method of learning in addition to its

flexibility in terms of time and place (Barbour & Reeves 2009). Moreover, one of its most important

privileges is the ease of continuous renewal of the information provided which helps to make learning

enjoyable (Al-Shanak & Doumi 2009).

Since Virtual reality emerged as an area of excellence for computer applications during the eighties,

this technology is still considered in its early stages of development. So far, there has been little

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

4/39

4

research on this technology particularly with regard to 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

origins. 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 application of quality concepts. Thus, standardization 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, specially in the Arab region we find

that the learners knowledge acquisition depends mainly on theory rather than practice and

experimentation of newly acquired knowledge in real life. This is due to many reasons, such as lack of

suitable equipment and lab instruments, or because of the risks and dangers resulting from some

laboratory experiments, in addition to the high cost of materials and shortage of time (Al-Radi 2008).

A virtual environment that is well-designed is able to connect what is happening within the virtual

learning environment, in terms of acquiring skills, experience and experiential learning with the reality

outside the institution.

Importance of this Study

The First International Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning, which was held in Riyadh

in March 2009, recommended activating the role of professional institutions and specialized groups in

emphasizing quality control procedures connected to academic e-learning and distance learning

programs. It also encouraged the use of managed learning systems and other e-learning technology by

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

5/39

5

staff members and students at academic institutions and suggested establishing a clear policy for

encouraging and supporting interested staff and students. It also recommended developing and adopting

standard tools 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).

The general acknowledgement of the importance of virtual and e-learning in general and in science

education in particular, and the widespread nature of its applications around the world, has led to

increasing attention to improvement of its quality. The issue of quality assurance in virtual learning has

become a new and additional challenge to e-learning in higher education. Ignoring this challenge means

that e-courses and programs will be created that are neither recognized nor certified and which lack

quality. This challenge faces 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 providing virtual academic

programs. These include Harvard, Berkeley, Massachusetts, Stanford, The British Open University,

London, and Oxford. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education, in Britain, pays

special attention to assuring the quality of electronic and virtual learning programs (QAA 2004).

Indeed, there are some totally virtual universities that offer their educational services using purely

virtual methods, starting from admission and registration of students, through the whole educational

process and ending with evaluation and the granting of degrees. Among these universities are Jones

International University in the United States of America and the International Management Center's

Association in Britain (Middlehurst 2003).

Therefore, the availability of quality in virtual and e-learning is a very important issue for any

academic course, program, 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

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

6/39

6

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 programs is subject

to the adherence and conformity of these programs to the quality standards issued by professional non-

profit organizations. Therefore the problematic issue of the quality of virtual and e-learning programs

requires the availability of appropriate criteria and mechanisms to verify the quality of these programs

(Al-Mulla 2008).

In the light of these issues, the researchers considered it important to take the initiative and set

mechanisms and standards to ensure quality and validity in the virtual science learning environment.

Therefore, this study seeks 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. To the knowledge of the

researchers, no Arabic studies have aimed to develop quality standards for the science virtual learning

environment.

Research Objective

The objective of this study is to attempt to propose standards for the quality of the science virtual

learning environment, hence identifying the general characteristics of a suggested vision of the virtual

learning environment in the light of quality standards.

Research Questions

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

7/39

7

The study aims to answer the following questions:

What is the role of VLE for science education in the light of total quality standards? Two subsidiary

questions arise from the previous one

1. What are the essential standards that can be suggested to ensure the quality of VLE for science education

and virtual laboratories?

2. To what extent are the suggested standards important in ensuring quality in VLE?

Research Hypothesis

The study hypothesized that there are meaningful statistical differences in arranging the degree of

importance of VLE design standards in the light of total quality standards which reflects the variance of

their importance in the study sample.

Research Approach

This research study followed the descriptive analytical method as being the most suitable methods for

this type of research as it allows the use of previous studies in the field. It depends upon studying the

subject and explaining it qualitatively and quantitatively. In addition to collecting and classifying data,

the study suggests a future vision for the virtual learning environment according to total quality

measures, and introduces a numerical display to stress the importance of the virtual sciences

environment, and finally leads to conclusions that will help developing the current situation.

This study consists of a chosen sample of educational experts in Saudi Arabian and European

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.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

8/39

8

Literature Review

Having reviewed the characteristic features of the virtual sciences learning environments and

highlighted its importance, the researchers reviewed current research in this field, in order to position

this study among the earlier studies, and to identify the gaps in the literature and points of weakness, in

order that the present study might fill the gap. The researchers have also tried to form a clear image

about the experience of using virtual sciences learning environment. It is worth mentioning, that the

novelty of the study of the virtual sciences learning environment had significant impact on the literature

of the research and studies that have been conducted in this field, of which there is a paucity, especially

in the Arab world. While viewing and studying the earlier studies and research, the two researchers

have been mindful of the need to state specific criteria, through which they selected the studies which

will be examined. These criteria include the newness of the study but also the extent to which it

encompasses the rapidity of change and development, and concentrates on the virtual sciences learning

environments, rather than focusing merely on electronic learning, which is regarded as the source from

which the virtual education derives. This study takes account of many Arabic and English studies

collected from many countries across the world.

a- Studies which have addressed the effectiveness of VLE on subsequent variables

The importance of reviewing this type of study arises from the fact that studying the effectiveness of

VLEs will assist in pointing out the factors that facilitated its effectiveness and usefulness, which

subsequently will help in defining quality standards in designing VLEs.

The two researchers have set the study of Barbour & Reeves (2009), as the starting point. This study

focuses on revising previous research, which dealt with the current status of virtual schools between

2004-2008. This study differentiated between the various types of virtual schools on the basis of

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

9/39

9

learning type: i.e. according to whether they are synchronized, unsynchronized or an independent virtual

school. It also managed to identify the benefits and advantages of virtual learning. The most significant

conclusions can be summed up as follows:

The ability to offer an individual sophisticated learning programme, customized to meet the

particular requirements of a certain student to fit his own learning style,

Flexibility in terms of time and place,

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,

Offering the opportunity for multiple educational options.

Barbour and Reeves (2009) also pinpointed the challenges that virtual education faces, such as: the

nature of the students themselves and the need for them to have positive attitudes towards self-study, as

well as the technical skills required, and enthusiasm for the educational method in use. The student also

needs to acquire good skills in time management. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance

of assessing the functionality of the virtual sciences learning environments, in addition to assessing the

extent to which these environments provide the expected benefits both for the teacher and the student.

As for recognizing the effectiveness of using VLEs, De Lucia and others (2009) managed to develop

a virtual university run through a website that supports such application i.e. Second life. The virtual

university consisted of four basic areas: the virtual campus, virtual cooperative work area, lecture rooms,

rest and recreation area. The environment is programmed to support the format of synchronized and

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

10/39

10

cooperative learning; in addition, it includes helping tools to support students and teachers usage and

to support browsing multimedia content. They have also connected the virtual university to a

commercial program for virtual learning which runs the educational content (MOODLE) to enrich the

educational experience within this 3D virtual university and to increase interaction and communication

between students and teachers in order to develop learning skills and social communication. The

researchers have conducted an experiment on a sample of students of this university to assess the

functionality of synchronized lectures, taking into account the difference between the virtual university

and any other electronic learning system as the design of this university depends basically on 3D design,

and selecting 3D characters to represent the actual student within the virtual world. Subsequently, the

research shows that the programmes success depends mainly on students attitudes towards belonging

to an educational society in which they act as a 3D character. In general the results of the evaluation

were very positive.

As a sequel to assessing the effectiveness of VLEs, the study of Jarmon and others (2009) aimed to

bridge the gap which exists in current studies which have focused only on the importance of using

VLEs, without directing an equal amount of attention to studies which are concerned with educational

design and assessment. Therefore, a sample of postgraduate students was studied in order to identify the

nature and phases of learning of the "interdisciplinary communication" module which is delivered via

Secondlife. This depends on cooperative learning, which is based on experimentation and ends up with

producing a project. A variety of data collection tools were used in this study, including students'

diaries, questionnaire, seminars, images and video clips. The study found that VLEs are perfectly

appropriate for experiential learning. Moreover it has significant educational efficiency among students.

The usage of VLEs has proven 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

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

11/39

11

of using VLEs on 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 when compared to their counterparts who 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 were in favour for the post-test which provides strong support for the

effectiveness of learning via a virtual university.

The study of Meisner, Hoffman, & Turner (2008) used pre- and post- test but in a scientific subject.

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 teaching. According to its 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.

The studies reviewed so far focused on the effectiveness of using VLEs for the university student By

contrast, Chen and others (Chen et al. 2007) and other researchers such as Stevens (2007( have

demonstrated that VLEs can be effective with primary and secondary school students. The latter study

focused on measuring the effectiveness of a virtual astronomical program that demonstrates the

movements of the earth. This program has been designed and developed in order to be used in classes

and aims to help the primary school student to comprehend the movements of the earth by using virtual

reality. A pre-test and post-test were administered before and after the program, The test targeted a

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

12/39

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

13/39

13

Education, Children's Services and Skills) (Ofsted 2009) which found out that a lot of participants

expressed their concern about quality assurance of VLEs which is in use in British schools. They have

also emphasized the importance of having official procedures to guarantee the quality of VLEs in

general and their content in particular.

However, in general, the quality standards for VLEs should take the needs of all the stakeholders and

beneficiaries into consideration, i.e. the student, 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 uniform standards to assure the application of quality standards 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 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 2004). Frydenberg

(2002) proposed and discussed a set of general standards to be used to assess the quality of electronic

education, and he 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 included: institutional

support, curriculum development, the process of teaching and learning, structure of educational content,

students' support, teaching staff's support, examining and evaluation, and ease of access.

Moore (2002) also discussed the five pillars of quality of electronic education on which the quality

framework in the United States of America "Sloan-C Quality Framework" is established. These pillars

include: first, effectiveness of learning, (which should be different from conventional education),

second, cost effectiveness which guarantees that educational institutions will offer their best educational

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

14/39

14

services, support, maintenance, continuous development of educational content in return for the lowest

nominal fees; third, ease of access, which guarantees that the student will have access to educational

support services such as the virtual library, as well as administrative support services such as financial

services and technical support. Fourth, teaching staff satisfaction, which is concerned with the

psychological and personal characteristics of teachers which cause them to be satisfied with their

experience in virtual teaching, both personally and vocationally. Fifth, students satisfaction, which

reflects the quality of all elements of the educational experience it is also concerned with supporting the

student's feeling of the accuracy and integrity of the educational process and reinforces the interaction

between the student and the teachers.

Hanson and Shelton (2008) stress the need for the quality assurance in VLE especially for those

teachers who do not have enough experience in developing educational materials. They put their

conception of quality in the form of a set of questions that the teacher has to take into account when

he/she designs and develops the virtual learning environment. These points include: inputs, computer

program, data base, virtual reality engine which is used to represent the virtual reality, user and task.

Although these questions look at the basic components of VLEs such as devices, program, educational

objectives, activities and interaction, these components are not explained in detail so it might be

considered merely as instructions and guidance, which should be taken into consideration during the

process of assuring the quality of VLE.

In this regard, Fyodorova (2005) has studied the influence of the theory of multiple intelligences on

the quality of virtual education. This study was very useful for the present researchers because of its

comprehensiveness and specificity concerning all of the components of VLE and because of the

framework which it proposes, through which VLE can be assessed and evaluated. The evaluation

standards include: gaining students attention, identifying the learning objectives, stimulating recall of

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

15/39

15

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, in the KSA, Al-Mulla (2008) designed a proposed tool for quality assurance of

academic programs delivered via e-learning. The tool consisted of 65 indicators which are divided into

9 main standards: administrative, program design, curriculum design, content display, curriculum

evaluation, student support, teaching staff support, other sources, and revision. Al-Mulla proposes using

model as an indicator to evaluate the quality of e-learning programs.

The study of Al-Saleh (2005) was concerned with measuring the quality of e-learning by setting basic

standards in order to evaluate the quality education. These standards were then categorized; each

standard contains indicators that indicate the quality of the e-curriculum which is subject to evaluation.

In addition, the researcher suggested a method through which the extent to which the e-curriculum meets

the standards of educational design quality can be measured and evaluated. These standards are:

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,

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

16/39

16

motivation, educational strategies and learning activities, interaction and feedback, interface design, e-

learning technology, evaluation of learners performance, and evaluation of curriculum effectiveness.

Massy(2002) stated in his report on the quality of e- learning in Europe that there are two major

standards to evaluate the quality of virtual education: first, that virtual environment should work without

causing any technical trouble to its users. Second, that the principles of educational design should be

evident, and clear. In addition it should suit all types of students, their needs and the educational

context. The two present researchers feel it necessary here 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, research institutions and in some

countries these standards come from educational institutions. These standards serve as indicators and

standards which refer to the applications that can be described as complying with quality yet these

standards are not obligatory. Thus the two present researchers have followed in the footsteps of the

earlier studies while preparing these standards but have added and amended some points in order to

make them applicable to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Dimensions of Quality

The foregoing discussion has made it clear that the two researchers have analyzed a wide range of

studies in order to identify the main dimensions of VLE quality standards. This has been achieved

through reviewing the studies which are related to total quality standards within programs and

educational institutions that apply virtual and e-learning, and from this analysis most important

dimensions have been identified, that should serve as basis for the quality standard within the virtual

environment. These dimensions are as follows:

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

17/39

17

1- The institutional dimension: this is concerned 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's support, educational

affairs, managing work load, size of classes, salaries, and intellectual property rights. Finally, student

services which includes: pre registration services, information related to programs, counseling and

guidance, financial support, registration, paying fees, library support, 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 science education VLE for instance: physical

simulation, procedural simulation, situation simulation, and process simulation.

3-The technological dimension: this examines the issues which are concerned with the 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 VLE programs including the design

of the website, content design, browsing, and user-friendliness.

5-Evaluation dimension: this includes evaluating students, the learning environment, and learning.

6-Virtual learning management dimension: this dimension refers to the maintenance of the VLE as well

as information distribution.

7- Resources support dimension: this examines the guidance support, technical support, vocational

guidance support, and the resources which are 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.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

18/39

18

Methods and Analysis

The current research attempted to answer the following research 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 suggested to ensure the quality of science

education virtual learning environment and laboratories?

1.2 To what extent are the suggested standards important in ensuring quality in VLE of science

education?

In order to answer question 1.1, the present researchers have analyzed and studied a large

number of studies that tackled the quality of virtual environments and e-learning. 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 lack in the field of quality

standards of VLEs. To remedy this lack, a form was designed containing six main standards on a

triangular scale, which identifies the importance of each standard making (3) the top level mark.

These standards are as follows:

The first standard: the design standard. This is divided into three subsidiary standards: (i) standards for

quality design of virtual science education environment dimensions and components, (ii) standards for

quality instructional design, (iii) standards for quality technical design

The second standard: standards for quality VLE software

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

19/39

19

The third standard: support standards. It is divided into four subsidiary standards: institutional support,

student support, faculty support, technical support

The fourth standard: authority and safety standards

The fifth standard: improvement and review standards

The sixth standard: VLE cost effectiveness standard

Many indicators fall under every main and subsidiary standard. These indicators describe the highest

rank of standard performance.

To answer question 1.2 the newly designed form was presented to a selected sample of educational

experts who work in Universities in Saudi Arabia, other Arab countries and Europe, and specialize in

science education, educational technology, e-learning and virtual education, information systems,

computer software, and pedagogical psychology, in order to specify the degree of importance of each

main standard and subsidiary indicator by using a triangular scale in which (1) represents the lowest

importance, (2) represent moderate importance and (3) represents high importance.

The process of designing, building and applying the proposed form for the standards of VLE of

science education passed through many phases, which can be summarized as follows:

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 programs and

institutions which applies e-learning and virtual education. They have also researched the foundations

of virtual and e-learning within the field of science education (Al-Shanak & Doumi 2009). Then the

octahedral figure shown below was devised, which indicates the dimension of the science virtual

learning environment. The proposed figure is presented in (figure 1).

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

20/39

20

Figure1.Science virtual learning environment dimensions.

The second phase: after designing the visual perception of VLE dimensions. The six main standards

were identified and each of them had a number of indicators.

The third phase:was concerned with ensuring the validity and usability of the form. A face validity

check was utilized as the form was presented to 15 experts who specialize in science education,

educational technology, psychology, and educational design, in order 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 was valid for application.

The fourth phase: aimed to measure the internal consistency of the form using Cronbach's Alpha

coefficient, which indicates the average correlation of all 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.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

21/39

21

The fifth phase: is the application phase in which the form was distributed to 30 experts who are

specialized in science education, educational technology, computer teaching methods, e-learning, in

Arab, British, Malaysian and Saudi 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 the light

of total quality standards? A wide range of studies and websites were consulted which tackled issues

related to virtual and e-learning quality design. The researchers have reached the proposed visual design

showed in (figure 2).

Figure 2 . Proposed visual design for the virtual science learning environment in light of total quality

standards

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

22/39

22

Figure (2) demonstrates how the proposed virtual sciences learning environment design, in the

light of total quality standards, has been established in accordance with a structural technological

philosophy in the sense that it includes:

1- Interactive learning environment, virtual classes which are distributed along the virtual environment,

providing variant access points for national and international networks, e-mail, mail groups, telnet,

online connection, video on demand (VOD), interactive televisions, instant and international educational

materials (Al-Mubarak 2004).

2- The virtual environment enables students and the teaching staff to attend conferences and meetings

remotely; make discussions; conduct other quick interactions with other parties who are part of the

educational process (Ellis & Calvo 2007).

3- The ability to publish information and documents electronically in the form of images and

multimedia, which offer a wide variety of resources.

4- It offers the ability to exchange all forms of information if required.

5-Immediate online contact between teaching staff, students, administration and home plays a very

important role.

6- Remotely managing educational data bases which exist in VLE, virtual libraries and laboratories as

well as educational networks.

7- It fulfills the requirements of active learning through training which is based on scientific innovation

and effectiveness which facilitates student's development in many aspects (JISC 2008).

8- Use of simulation strategies indecision-making; solving problems; and tackling variant situation in

light of the facts and conditions made available via the virtual sciences learning environment (Dickey

2005)

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

23/39

23

9- Cooperative education is available within VLE in light of total quality standards for the users of this

environment which allows a sort of cooperative interaction and group participation within the frame of

this environment that is quite similar to the actual environment (Fyodorova 2005;Jarmon, Traphagon,

Mayrath, & Trivedi 2009;Stevens 2007)

10- Through VLEs students can visit scientific clubs, science museum, virtual libraries, and practice a

wide variety of enriching activities which enable them to gain authentic experience (Hin &

Subramaniam 2005)

11- Students can conduct scientific experiments within the virtual laboratories by dealing with 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).

12- There is feedback that connects all components of VLE, its inputs, and outputs. These connections

create a comprehensive system that is bounded to its component through continuous cause-and- effect

relations.

Study Findings: Semantic analysis of the results of the study and interpretation

Data acquired from experts was processed and analyzed. Analysis included frequencies and

percentages, in addition to the Chi-square test. The appendix shows all statistical results for all of the

indicators included in the form. Tables in the appendix show that there are statistical differences in

arranging the degree of importance of main and subsidiary standards of virtual sciences learning

environment, which reflects its importance from the sample's point of view. This is applicable at the

level of 0.05 and 0.01 in all of main and subsidiary standards which means that the hypothesis is

acceptable on the basis of these indicators. The Chi-square test was used in order to identify the extent

of significance of differences in arranging the degree of importance of each standard. The values of 2

were proved to be significant at all of the indicators except for 10 indicators; namely, (27-28-29-31-45-

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

24/39

24

67-68-105-164-165). This means that no differences were detected among experts' opinions about these

ten indicators. If the value of 2 was significant this means that there was variance in the opinions of

respondent as a result of the unequal frequencies in any indicator.

Through the study and the analysis of the table 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 studys hypothesis.

First: the relative importance of the VLE main standards as has been indicated by the experts

Table 1

The frequencies and percentages of the relative importance of VLE main standards arranged according

to importance

Rank Main Standard Frequencies Mean Value The mean average

percentage

1 Design 345 316.3667 91.7

2 Support 177 162.0000 91.53

3 Authority and Safety 48 43.7000 91.044 Improvement and Review 42 38.1667 90.87

5 VLE Cost Effectiveness 33 29.9000 90.616 Quality VLE Software 60 54.3000 90.5

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

25/39

25

Figure 3. The percentage of the relative importance of VLE main standards

From (Table 1) and (Figure 3) we may notice that the percentage of the arithmetic average of the

VLE standards exceeds 90%. This means that these standards are perceived as of high importance and

this places emphasis on using these standards as a tool for the purposes of 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, where the

percentage of its arithmetic average reached 91.7 %.

The two researchers think that the reason behind this high percentage is that the virtual sciences

learning environments including its components of hardware and softwares ultimate accuracy 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 experts view with an average that reached 91.53 %. The two researchers regard this

standard as an important one and 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, the satisfaction of

teaching staff as well as students who use the VLE. In the third place came the "authority and safety

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

26/39

26

standard", "improvement and review standard" came fourth, "VLE cost effectiveness" ranked fifth,

finally, "quality VLE software" came in the sixth and last place. The two researchers consider that the

fact that the quality VLE software standard comes in the last position does not indicate insignificance of

the standard; on the contrary, its arithmetic average was 90.5%. This reflects the close similarity of

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; Al-Shanak & Doumi 2009).

Second: the relative importance of the VLE subsidiary standards as has been indicated by the experts

Table 1

The frequencies and percentages of the relative importance of VLE subsidiary standards arranged

according to importance

Rank Subsidiary standard Frequencies Mean value The mean average

percentage

1 Quality design dimensions and

components

6 64 .3000 97.42

2 Institutional support 42 39.1000 93.1

3 Technical support 24 22.2333 92.644 Quality instructional design 129 117.6667 91.21

5 Authority and safety 48 43.7000 91.04

6 Faculty support 45 40.9000 90.89

7 Improvement and review 42 38.1667 90.878 VLE cost effectiveness 33 29.9000 90.61

9 Student support 66 59.7667 90.56

10 Quality VLE software 60 54.3000 90.511 Quality technical design 150 134.4000 89.6

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

27/39

27

Figure 4. Percentages of the relative importance of VLE subsidiary standards

After examining (Table 2) and (Figure 4) it will be noticed that the subsidiary standard "quality

design dimensions and components" ranked first, as its arithmetic average reached 97.42 %. The reason

why this subsidiary standard ranked so highly according to the researchers was because the main

standard that it is related to ranked first as well. 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 to agree with these studies such as (Abofakhr 2008; Al-

Mulla 2008; Al-Shaer 2008). In the second position came "Institutional support" with 93.01%, the third

was "Technical support" with 92.64 %. Fourth was "Quality instructional design" with 91.21 %.

"Authority and Safety" came 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

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

28/39

28

90.61%. The ninth was "Quality VLE software" with 90.5%. The eleventh was "Quality technical

design" with 89.6 % this standard seized the last position concerning relative importance according to

the responses of the experts. The two researchers believe the fact that this standard ranked last does not

mean that the surveys participants underestimate its importance, since it had a high percentage 89.6%

this value is regarded as a high value, though it came last. The reason behind this rank 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 its design quality.

Conclusion

This study was very thorough and detailed because of the importance and multi-faceted nature of the

topic. Ensuring quality of VLEs requires a pluralistic approach that covers all details of the learning and

teaching experience. In order to benefit from all the fruitful results promised by VLE, therefore, the two

researchers 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 this field it is suggested

to continue researching and creating adaptable new standards as tools to measure and ensure the quality

of VLEs.

References

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

29/39

29

Abofakhr, Z. 2008, "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", Zain E-Learning Centre, Bahrain, pp. 1-29.

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, vol. 12, no. 1,

pp. 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, King Saud University.

Al-Mulla, F. 2008, "Model of the proposed standards to ensure the quality of academic programs in e-

learning", Zain E-Learning Centre, Bahrain.

Al-Radi, A. 2008, "Virtual Labs as a Model of E-learning", Ministry of Education, E-LearningForum.

Al-Saleh, B. 2005 "E-Learning and Instructional Design: Partnership for Quality", Tenth Scientific

Conference for the Egyptian Association for Educational Technology, Cairo, pp. 1-45.

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, vol. 131, no. 2.

Al-Shanak, K. & Doumi, H. 2009, Foundations of E-Learning in Science Education Dar Wael for

Publishing and Distribution, Amman, Jordan.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

30/39

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

31/39

31

Dickey, M. D. 2005, "Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning:two case studies of Active

Worlds as a medium for distance education",British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 3,

pp. 439-451.

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, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 60-

70.

First International Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning 2009, "First International

Conference of e-Learning and Distance Learning", National Center for E-Learning and Distance

Learning, Riyadh.

Frydenberg, J. 2002, "Quality Standards in e-Learning: A matrix of analysis", International Review of

Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-15.

Fyodorova, A. 2005, Multiple Intelligence Theory in Improving the Quality of Virtual Education,

Master, University of Joensuu.

Gerval, J. P. & Le Ru, Y. 2008, "Virtual Lab: Discovering through Simulation", University of Bucharest

and Ovidius University of Constanta, The 3rd International Conference on Virtual Learning, pp. 35-44.

Hamit, F. 1993, Virtual Reality: An Exploration of Cyberspace. Carmel Prentice-Hall Publishers,

Indiana.

Hanson, K. & Shelton, B. E. 2008, "Design and Development of Virtual Reality: Analysis of Challenges

Faced by Educators",Educational Technolgy & Society, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 118-131.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

32/39

32

Helsel, S. K. 1992, "Virtual reality as a learning medium", Instructional Delivery Systems, vol. 6, no. 4,

pp. 4-5.

Hin, L. T. W. & Subramaniam, R. 2005, E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers Information Science

Publishing, Hershey.

Jarmon, L., Traphagon, A., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. 2009,Virtual world teaching, experiential

learning, and assessment. Computers & Education.

JISC. Effective Use of VLEs: Introduction to VLEs. JISC infoNet , 1-44. 2008. JISC. 15-4-2009.

Khamees, M. A. 2003, The Development of Educational Technology Dar Quba for Publishing and

Distribution, Ciro.

Massy, J. 2002, Quality and E-Learning in Europe Summary Report, Bizmedia.

Mclellan, H. 1996, "Virtual Realities," in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and

Technology, D. H. Jonassen, ed., Simon& Schuster Macmillan, New York, pp. 457-487.

McLoughlin, C. & Visser, T. 2003, "Global perspectives on quality in online higher education", World

Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp. 253-256.

Meisner, G. W., Hoffman, H., & Turner, M. 2008, "Learning Physics in a Virtual Environment: Is There

Any?",Lat.Am.J.Phys.Edu, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 87-102.

Middlehurst, R. Quality Assurance and Accreditation for Virtual Education: A discussion of models and

needs. UNESCO, 1-10. 2003. UNESCO. 8-4-2009.

Moore, J. C. 2002, Elements of Quality: The Sloan-C FrameworkSloan Center for Online Education,

Needham, MA.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

33/39

33

Ofsted 2009, Virtual learning environments: an evaluation of their development in a sample of

educational settings, 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) Open University Press, Buckingham.

QAA 2004, 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), Quality

Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Stevens, K. 2007, "The Development of Virtual Educational Environments to Support Inter-School

Collaboration", Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 29-37.

Wang, Q. 2006, "Quality assurance best practices for assessing online programs.",International Journal

on E-Learningpp. 1-9.

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

34/39

34

Appendix

The Frequencies and Percentage of all of the Main and Subsidiary Standards of the VLEs

Standard From, In Light of Total Quality Standards.

DesignStandard Subsidiary

indicators

Degree of Importance Arithmetic

mean

percentage 2values.3 2 1

No. % No. % No. %

1 23 67.7 7 23.3 -- -- 2.7667 92.22 8.533

2 25 83.3 3 10.0 2 6.7 2.7667 92.22 33.8

3 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

4 24 80.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

5 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

6 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

7 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

8 21 70.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *9 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 26.6

10 16 53.3 10 33.3 4 13.3 2.4000 80.00 7.2

11 25 83.3 3 10.0 2 6.7 2.7667 92.22 33.8

12 21 70.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

13 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

14 21 70.0 9 30.3 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

15 23 67.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

16 24 80.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

17 18 60.0 8 26.7 4 13.3 2.4667 82.22 10.4

18 22 73.3 6 20.0 2 6.7 2.6667 88.89 22.4

19 27 90.0 2 6.7 1 3.3 2.8667 95.56 43.4

20 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

21 17 56.7 12 40.0 1 3.3 2.5333 84.44 13.4

22 19 63.3 10 33.3 1 3.3 2.6000 86.67 16.2

23 18 60.0 10 33.3 2 6.7 2.5333 84.44 12.8

24 18 60.0 7 23.3 5 16.7 2.4333 81.11 9.8

25 27 90.0 2 6.7 1 3.3 2.8667 95.56 43.4

26 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

27 18 60.0 12 40.0 - - 2.6000 86.67 1.2

28 20 66.7 10 33.3 - - 2.6667 88.89 3.333

29 17 56.7 13 43.3 - - 2.5667 85.56 0.53330 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

31 20 66.7 10 33.3 - - 2.6667 88.89 3.333

32 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

33 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

34 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

35 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

36 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

35/39

35

37 25 83.3 3 10.0 2 6.7 2.7667 92.22 33.8

38 25 83.3 3 10.0 2 6.7 2.7667 92.22 33.8

39 27 90.0 3 10.0 - - 2.9000 96.67 19.2

40 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

41 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

42 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.33343 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

44 22 73.3 6 20.0 2 6.7 2.6667 88.89 22.4

45 20 66.7 10 33.3 - - 2.6667 88.89 3.333

46 26 68.7 3 10.0 1 3.3 2.8333 94.44 38.6

47 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

48 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

49 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

50 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

DesignStandard Subsidiary

indicators

Degree of Importance Arithmetic

mean

percentage 2values3 2 1

No. % No. % No. %

51 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

52 22 72.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

53 20 66.7 9 30.0 1 3.3 2.6333 87.78 18.2

54 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

55 21 70.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

56 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

57 18 60.0 11 36.7 1 3.3 2.5667 85.56 14.6

58 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

59 24 80.0 4 13.3 2 6.7 2.7333 91.11 29.6

60 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

61 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

62 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533

63 24 80.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

64 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

65 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

66 20 66.7 9 30.0 1 3.3 2.6333 87.78 18.2

67 20 66.7 10 33.3 - - 2.6667 88.89 3.33

68 20 66.7 10 33.3 - - 2.6667 88.89 3.33.69 26 86.7 4 13.3 - - 2.8667 95.56 16.133

70 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

71 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

72 27 90.0 3 10.0 - - 2.9000 96.67 19.2

73 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

74 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

75 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

36/39

36

76 24 80.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

77 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

78 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

79 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

80 20 66.7 8 26.7 2 6.7 2.6000 86.67 16.8

81 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.682 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

83 22 73.3 4 13.3 4 13.3 2.6000 86.67 21.6

84 23 76.7 5 16.7 2 6.7 2.7000 90.00 25.8

85 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

86 22 27.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

87 18 60.0 8 26.7 4 13.3 2.4667 82.22 10.4

88 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

89 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

90 24 80.7 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

91 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

92 19 63.3 8 26.7 3 10.0 2.5333 84.44 13.493 20 66.7 6 20.0 4 13.3 2.5333 84.44 15.2

94 24 80.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

95 20 66.7 7 23.3 3 10.0 2.5667 85.56 15.8

96 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

97 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.33

98 21 70.7 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

99 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

100 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

101 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

102 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

103 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

104 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

105 16 53.3 8 26.7 6 20.0 2.3333 77.78 5.6.

106 16 53.3 13 43.3 1 3.3 2.5000 83.33 12.6

107 21 70.0 8 76.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

108 18 60.0 10 33.3 2 6.7 2.5333 84.44 12.8

109 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

110 19 63.3 9 30.0 2 6.7 2.5667 85.56 14.6

111 17 56.7 11 36.7 2 6.7 2.5000 83.33 11.4

112 18 60.0 10 33.3 2 6.7 2.5333 84.44 12.8

113 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

Designstandard Subsidiary

indicators

Degree of Importance Arithmetic meanpercentage 2values3 2 1

No. % No. % No. %

114 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

115 20 66.7 8 26.7 2 6.7 2.6000 86.67 16.8

116 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

117 19 63.3 8 26.7 3 10.0 2.5333 84.44 13.4

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

37/39

37

SupportStandard

QualityVLESoft

wareStandard 118 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 206

119 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

120 24 80.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

121 22 73.3 6 20.0 2 6.7 2.6667 88.89 22.4

122 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

123 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6124 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

125 21 70.0 7 23.3 2 6.7 2.6333 87.78 19.4

126 20 66.7 8 26.7 2 6.7 2.6000 86.67 16.8

127 23 76.7 5 16.7 2 6.7 2.7000 90.00 25.8

128 26 86.7 4 13.3 - - 2.8667 95.56 16.133

129 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

130 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

131 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

132 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

133 20 66.7 8 26.7 2 6.7 2.6000 86.67 16.8

134 19 63.3 10 33.3 1 3.3 2.6000 86.67 16.2135 18 60.0 11 36.7 1 3.3 2.5667 85.56 14.6

136 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

137 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

138 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

139 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

140 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

141 26 86.7 4 13.3 - - 2.8667 95.56 16.133

142 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

143 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

144 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

145 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

146 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

147 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

148 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

149 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

150 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

151 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

152 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

153 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

154 21 70.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

155 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4156 18 60.0 10 33.3 2 6.7 2.5333 84.44 12.8

157 23 76.7 5 61.7 2 6.7 2.7000 90.00 25.8

158 25 83.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

159 20 66.7 9 30.0 1 3.3 2.6333 87.78 18.2

160 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

161 21 70.0 7 23.3 2 6.7 2.6333 87.78 19.4

162 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

38/39

38

163 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

164 20 66.7 10 33.3 - - 2.6667 88.89 3.333.

165 19 63.3 11 36.7 - - 2.6333 87.78 2.133.

166 21 70.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

167 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

168 22 73.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4169 21 70.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8

170 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

171 24 80.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

172 25 83.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

173 23 76.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

174 24 80.0 6 20.0 - -

175 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

176 23 76.7 7 23.3 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

177 24 80.0 6 20.0 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

178 22 73.3 8 26.7 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

SupportStandard

Subsidiaryindicators

Degree of Importance Arithmetic meanpercentage 2values3 2 1

No.% No. % No. %

179 2273.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

180 2376.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

181 2273.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

182 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

183 2273.3 8 26.7 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

184 2273.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533

185 1963.3 10 33.3 1 3.3 2.6000 86.67 16.2

186 2170.0 6 20.0 3 10.0 2.6000 86.67 18.6

187 1963.3 9 30.0 2 6.7 2.5667 85.56 14.6

188 2273.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533

189 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

190 2583.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

191 2376.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

192 2376.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

193 2376.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

194 2376.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

195 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

196 2376.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

AuthorityandSafet

y

Standard

197 2376.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533198 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

199 2583.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

200 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

201 2583.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

202 2583.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

203 2583.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

204 2273.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

8/7/2019 JSSH-0315-2010 (ORG MS V2) - 29 Nov 2010

39/39

39

205 2066.7 8 26.7 2 6.7 2.6000 86.67 16.8

206 2273.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

207 2273.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

208 1963.3 9 30.0 2 6.7 2.5667 85.56 14.6

209 2066.7 7 23.3 3 10.0 2.5667 85.56 15.8

210 2170.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6211 2273.3 8 26.7 - - 2.7333 91.11 6.533 *

212 2376.7 6 20.0 1 3.3 2.7333 91.11 26.6

ImprovementandReviewStandard 213 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

214 2583.3 4 13.3 1 3.3 2.8000 93.33 34.2

215 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

216 2170.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

217 2066.7 9 30.0 1 3.3 2.6333 87.78 18.2

218 2066.7 9 30.0 1 3.3 2.6333 87.78 18.2

219 2273.3 6 20.0 2 6.7 2.6667 88.89 22.4

220 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8

221 2480.0 6 20.0 - - 2.8000 93.33 10.8222 2273.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

223 2170.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

224 2170.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

225 2480.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

226 2170.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

VLECost-Effectiveness

Sta

ndard

227 2273.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

228 2273.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

229 2170.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 2.6667 88.89 20.6

230 2170.0 6 20.0 3 10.0 2.6000 86.67 18.6

231 2170.0 6 20.0 3 10.0 2.6000 86.67 18.6

232 2273.3 7 23.3 1 3.3 2.7000 90.00 23.4

233 2170.0 9 30.0 - - 2.7000 90.00 4.8 *

234 2376.7 7 23.3 - - 2.7667 92.22 8.533

235 2686.7 4 13.3 - - 2.8667 95.56 16.133

236 2480.0 5 16.7 1 3.3 2.7667 92.22 30.2

237 2583.3 5 16.7 - - 2.8333 94.44 13.333

2 which is mentioned in the table = 6.635 at level 0.01 2 which is mentioned in the table = 3.841 at

level 0.05