Quality in virtual education environments

The emergence of the Internet has changed the way we teach and learn . This paper provides a general overview of the state of the quality of virtual education environments . First of all, some problems with the quality criteria applied in this field and the need to develop quality seals are presented . Likewise, the dimensions and subdimensions of an empirical instrument to improve and assess the quality of online education are examined . This tool has already been applied to several educational contexts ; though not definitive, it aims to improve not only specific areas, but also the whole educational approach as a system . Introduction The enormous proliferation of technology-based distance learning programmes and courses requires rigorous selection through the analysis of the quality of the different educational proposals on offer in society. Often the term quality is fragile and empty of meaning, but we defend quality based not on structural and organisational topics but in terms of academic achievements, that is, the knowledge-building process experienced by the student . The knowledge gained from a training institution is the main result of an educational process and its quality must assure this. In our opinion, quality should follow the constructivist principles in an integrated way, teaching students and providing them with more independence in terms of the learning (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). The rush of educational institutions to offer Internet-based courses for distance education raises some very interesting issues concerning their quality. The promise of distance education through virtual environments being able to provide high quality education has yet to be realised . British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004 . Published by Blackwaell Publishing Ltd ., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford 0X4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA . 14 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 12004 On the one hand, from a practical point of view, virtual education environments are very interesting for those people who want to study throughout their lives, as it is possible to learn whenever and wherever you wish . On the other hand, from an educational point of view, virtual education environments are failing to meet the promises made, as they focus on: (a) the prevalence of technological and aesthetic criteria over educational criteria, which should be the goal of any educational action in a virtual context (eg, in the case of hypertexts that do not promote knowledge, but instead an erratic path for students) ; (b) the confusion between the mere supply of information and actual training processes (knowledge-building processes) ; and (c) a dominant superficial attitude in many virtual education proposals, resulting from the two aforementioned factors, but not only from these . In short, few educational principles are actually being implemented to improve the courses . Obviously, we recognise the enormous potential that telecommunications technologies offer for expanding education but we cannot be sure about the quality. There is still a relatively limited body of research evaluating the effectiveness of online learning (Petracchi and Patchner, 2001) and some contradictions have emerged (Harvey, 2002 ; Sims et al, 2002) . One of the main causes in the failure to evaluate the quality is the methods used to measure it in these virtual environments (for a brief review consult Gunawardena et al, 2000) . Another problem leading to the lack of validity is in terms of the locations where the quality of education is being assessed (Gosling and D'Andrea, 2001) . Quality seals In this context, we agree that in the future, the main role of the Web will consist neither of offering web pages full of information nor offering varied educational proposals, but in establishing filters that ensure that these proposals are reliable and worthy (Kirkwood, 1998 ; Tretin, 2000) . The task (beyond the current generalised proliferation) will be to select and specialise, with detail and personalisation, backed by educational quality seals . These seals will have to be socially recognised by competent bodies, and as has happened in attendance-based contexts, organisations, both public and private, will appear to evaluate whether the job has been done well enough so that higher levels of reliability can be offered to users . This reality is imminent, although it will be difficult to assimilate given the complexity in organising the means currently available . These organisations will be evaluation bodies that determine the educational quality on offer through technological media, and on the Web in particular, but also in educational television, satellite videoconferences, and in short, technology as a whole . These evaluations will not only yield results obtained from the application of instruments for data capture and analysis, but they will also offer judgements and their conclusions will have to be communicated or conveniently publicised for educational purposes. This is required due to the fact that the use of the results of these evaluations may be multiple . One example would be, and this is not the worst-case scenario, to offer British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004 . Virtual education environments 1 5 an external ranking (of premium educational centres) or an internal ranking (eg, of instructors) . As has been said above, this process will have to serve, primarily, to review training methods in virtual contexts, and hence, implies a process of reflection on educational proposals (Garrison and Shale, 1987) . There are, obviously, standards to evaluate learning environments for online courses (Oliver and Reeves, 1996 ; Reeves, 1994 ; Little and Banega, 1999) but, in our opinion, they are normally based on partial proposals or varying levels of quality (eg, CSU, 2002 ; IDE, 1999 ; Frydenberg, 2002), which do not help in viewing the whole system as an integrated reality . To proceed to make institutions and teachers aware, we also wish to highlight certain other errors relating to the quality criteria used, which do not help the introduction of evaluation proposals for virtual environments . Knowledge of these will ensure we bear them in mind in the search for quality in virtual education . Errors in quality criteria Below are certain errors in the application of quality criteria in virtual contexts that can enlighten us for future proposals . The first consists of the almost exact reproduction of business quality models for education; neither the form nor the content of these models can be translated to educational environments in the way they have been (not to mention the results) . Total quality models (TO and EFQM [European Foundation Quality Management], among others), based more on management than teaching and learning processes, are applied to attendance-based education . These models are beginning to be applied to distance education without the necessary reflection, simply translating, in the majority of cases, in an intuitive manner, the terms and concepts used in business environments . We believe that the goals in the educational and entrepreneurial contexts are different enough to require different quality models, contrary to what has been seen up to now. A second error, which to a certain degree is related to that above, is that the core of many educational quality evaluations is user satisfaction, which, in this case, is student satisfaction (Gosling and D'Andrea, 2001) . We do not feel that this is a good indicator, nor does it seem correct to base all the dynamics of such a complex system as education on the students' opinion (even less so if what they express is satisfaction or dissatisfaction) . Opinion polls, often only carried out once and without sufficient knowledge of the educational institution (its goals, conditions, development, etc), can only lead to error in evaluating the educational community. A third noteworthy error is the continuing and mistaken belief about the cost of distance education, one that is not helpful in any way . It is true that this kind of education can be less expensive, but if we are talking about quality education, we cannot British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004 . 16 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 1 2004 claim that this is the case (nor should it be) (Rumble, 199 7) . The costs for distance education students are not as clear as for those in attendance-based courses, and they also depend on the kind of virtual education carried out. Education focused basically on the transmission of contents, even if complex, will differ from education that attempts to provide an instrument that enhances true interaction and in which development and support staff are required . A fourth error comes from the quantification of quality in multimedia systems that evaluates the quality of their resources in terms of the number of different paths that allow for interaction with the user (visual, audio, written, etc) ; whether the quality of the design or the production of the material allows for a true support for the student is less important. Even if it is a factor for potential educational use, it cannot be separated from its objectives (Sparkes, 1992) . As has been stated above, our interest in evaluating the quality of educational contexts is not focused merely on the organisational or methodological aspects, as is the case in the majority of proposals, but on the teaching and learning processes themselves . Because of this, the basic evaluation material will be the relations that are established between instructor and students, and the dialogue that comes from this practical community (Harasim et al, 1995). Obviously, the actions that the students and instructor carry out with the material and resources available, as well as the procedures of which students and teachers decide to take advantage from the context in order to familiarise themselves with the content of the course, will also form a part of the focus of evaluation (Barbera, 2000) . Virtual education community Focusing on this community of virtual practice produced in learning environments, the different relations that appear in it seem to determine the dynamic core for a quality education . In this framework Moore (1989) proposes treating the analysis of quality based on three kinds of interaction . We would add the fact that multiple relations are established among the different interactions . To summarise, they are the