Advances in E-learning-Experiences and Methodologies

Quality Assessment of E-Facilitators
Future reseArch dIrectIons
The e-quality management model serves as a
solid starting point for maintaining high quality
standards. Future research should compare TQM
model applications to e-educational environments.
Another area of interest is how the e-QM model
aligns with the organizational mission and HR
recruitment efforts of the university. Considering
that the range of student feedback in face-to-face
settings are an element of value during facilitator
evaluations (Scriven, 1999), other studies should
examine the relationship between the e-QM model
and student survey responses, and the alignment
of both sources of evaluation. With the question of
quality in mind, additional research should explore
how different class dynamics, such as personality,
for example, influence the e-professor’s performance
and the outcome of student evaluation on
the e-facilitator.
Bearing in mind that every individual has a
different construct of quality (most frequently
defined by personal experience), quality occurs
the moment the individual recognizes its occurrence
(Stake, 1999). Thus, future research should
consider asking how each, the student and the
e-facilitator, construct quality This should then
be compared to the quality standards set for in
the e-facilitators evaluation.
The concept of evaluating teaching as a community
practice (Stake & Cohernour, 1999) should
also be investigated in virtual universities. In the
online environment, e-facilitators are geographically
dispersed; thus, both individual and team
contributions must be considered when evaluating
teaching in the online environment.
A case study may look at the effectiveness of
e-facilitator development and growth in teaching
skills by promoting class visitations by peer
facilitators. A self-assessment component may be
added to the evaluation model. Finally, the psychological
impact of evaluations on e-facilitators
should also be considered.
Continuous review of this model will produce
continuous quality improvement in e-teaching
and learning, resulting in personal and professional
development growth for the student, the
individual, and the entire organization.
reFerences
Burkhalter, B.B. (1996). How can institutions
of higher education achieve quality within the
new economy? Total Quality Management, 7,
153-160.
Burr, J.T. (1993, March). A new name for a not so
new concept. Quality Progress, 87-88.
Cave, M., Hanney, S., Kogan, M., & Trevett, G.
(1988). The use of performance indicators in
higher education: A critical analysis of developing
practice. London: Jessica Kingslay.
Chadwick, P.A. (1994). University’s TQM initiative.
In P. Nightingale & M. O’Neill (Eds.),
Achieving quality learning in higher education
(pp. 120-135). London: Kogan Page.
Cheng, Y.C. (1996). The pursuit of school effectiveness:
Theory, policy, and research. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is free. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Dahlgaard, J.J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G.K.
(1995). TQM and education. Total Quality Management,
6(5-6).
Daniels, S.E. (2002). First to the top. Quality
Progress, 35(5), 41-53.
Deming, W.E. (1989). Foundation for management
of quality in the western world. New York:
Perigee Books.
Evans, J.R., & Lindsay, W.M. (1999). The management
and control of quality (4 th ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western College Publishing.