Quality assurance in e-learning: PDPP evaluation model and its application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-learning has become an increasingly important teaching and learning mode in educational institutions and corporate training. The evaluation of e-learning, however, is essential for the quality assurance of e-learning courses. This paper constructs a four-phase evaluation model for e-learning courses, which includes planning, development, process, and product evaluation, called the PDPP evaluation model. Planning evaluation includes market demand, feasibility, target student group, course objectives, and finance. Development evaluation includes instructional design, course material design, course Web site design, flexibility, student-student interaction, teacher/tutor support, technical support, and assessment. Process evaluation includes technical support, Web site utilization, learning interaction, learning evaluation, learning support, and flexibility. Product evaluation includes student satisfaction, teaching effectiveness, learning effectiveness, and sustainability. Using the PDPP model as a research framework, a purely e-learning course on Research Methods in Distance Education, developed by the School of Professional and Continuing Education at the University of Hong Kong (HKU SPACE) and jointly offered with the School of Distance Learning for Medical Education of Peking University (SDLME, PKU) was used as a case study. Sixty students from mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Malaysia were recruited for this course. According to summative evaluation through a student e-learning experience survey, the majority of students were very satisfied/satisfied on all e-learning dimensions of this course. The majority of students thought that the learning effectiveness of this course was equivalent, even better, than face-to-face learning because of cross-border collaborative learning, student-centred learning, sufficient learning support, and learning flexibility. This study shows that a high quality of teaching and learning might be assured by using the systematic PDPP evaluation procedure. It is hoped that the PDPP evaluation model and its application can provide a benchmark for establishing a wider e-learning quality assurance mechanism in educational institutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".