Perceived Quality Dimensions In Distance Education: Excerpts From Student Experiences
Abstract
Distance education by its nature differs from the regular mode of higher education. A viable option for providing access to higher education for students who cannot attend traditional, on-campus courses, distance education, often gets a tag of being sedentary. This puts into question the qualitative aspect of the distance education courses. Distance education therefore often confronts a perception that its programmes, learning materials, and student support are not of a high standard (Badat, 2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of distance learning should focus mainly on students’ academic performance and their feedback on their learning experiences. The present study intends to study the quality facet of distance education and its dimensions as perceived by the students enrolled in distance education courses. For conducting the study, 100 students pursuing Masters of Education (M.Ed.) from University School of Open Learning, Panjab University, were selected. Students were asked to give their feedback on areas associated with the quality like, aims and objectives of the course, teaching of the course content, curriculum transaction, learning material, student support services, evaluation procedures, infrastructural facilities and general perspective of the overall learning environment. To study the quality dimensions as perceived by the learners, content analysis was incorporated. The results reveal that the students are satisfied with the overall quality of distance education courses. The areas that emerged to be a matter of concern in the present study are student support services and infrastructural facilities available in the institutions offering distance education courses.
Keywords
Quality, quality Dimensions, Distance Education, Course Experiences, Student Evaluation.
References
- Badat, S. (2005). South Africa: Distance higher education policies for access, social equity, quality, and social and economic responsiveness in a context of the diversity of provision. Distance Education, 26 (2), 183–204.
- Dharanajan, G. (2002). Open and Distance Learning in Developing Economies. UNESCO
- Conference of Ministers of Education of African Member States, December 6. Drennan, J., Kennedy, J. & Pisarksi, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward s flexible online learning in management education.
- The Journal of Educational Research,98 (6), 331-340. Goel, A. & Goel, L. S. (2000). Distance Education in 21st Century. Deep & Deep publishers,
- Rajouri Garden, India: New Delhi. Hall, J. C. (2001). Retention and wastage in FE and HE. The Scottish Council for Research in Education. http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/resources/retention%20and%20wasta ge_hall.pdf
- Inman, E., Kerwin, M. & L. Mayes. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward distance learning. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 23 (6), 581592.
- Krishnan, C. (2012).Student Support Services in Distance Higher Education in India: A
- Critical Appraisal.International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences,2(2), 459-4
- McAnanay, E. G. (1975). Radio schools in non-formal education: an evaluation perspective. In La Belle, T. J. (Ed.) Educational Alternatives in Latin America: Social
- Change and Social Stratification. UCLA Latin, Los Angeles: America Centre Publications. Mowen, A. J. & Sara, C. P. (1997). Competitive Marketing of Distance Education: A Model for Placing Quality Within a Strategic Planning Context. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 27-39.