Inter-Learner Communication and Collaborative Learning as Quality Criteria of Distance Vocational Education and Training

Anastasia Batsila 1
  • 1 Hellenic Open University, , Patras, Greece


Distance web-based VET is nowadays of utmost importance for the EU. But, its special characteristics create doubts, as far as its quality is concerned, so research in this field is essential. According to the theoretical background, teaching methods and specifically, inter-learner communication and collaborative learning, are related to quality assurance. However, they are not always included in quality criteria nor is their use widespread in Greek distance VET. The aim of the research was to compare learner views with EU policy on the inclusion of inter-learner communication and collaborative learning in quality criteria. A qualitative research design was used to investigate EU quality assurance policy and frameworks. According to the findings, inter-learner communication is included in seven EU quality assurance frameworks, while collaborative learning in five of them. Learners have the same opinion about collaborative learning, but inter-learner communication is not as widely accepted as it is by EU organizations. However, from both perspectives, there is a stronger preference for distance inter-learner communication.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Alexander, S., & Golja, T. (2007). Using students’ experiences to derive quality in an e-learning system: an institution’s perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 17-33.

  • 2. Baldwin, S., & Trespalacios, J. (2017). Evaluation instruments and good practices in online education. Online Learning, 21(2). Retrieved from

  • 3. Claus, E., & Dooley, K. (2005). Quality in distance education: A preliminary review of the literature. Retrieved from

  • 4. Collardyn, D., & Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non-formal and informal learning: Policy and practices in EU member states. European Journal of Education, 39(1), 69-89.

  • 5. Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality – An account of the EFQUEL MOOC Quality Project. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 3, 78-87.

  • 6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

  • 7. DeGennaro, D. (2010). Grounded in theory: Immersing pre-service teachers in technology-mediated learning. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 338-359.

  • 8. EADTU (2012). E-xcellence Next. Quality assessment for e-learning: a benchmarking approach. Maastricht: EADTU.

  • 9. EADTU (2016). E-xcellence. Quality assessment for e-learning: a benchmarking approach. Maastricht: EADTU.

  • 10. ECB Check (2012). Open ECB Check quality criteria for programmes. Retrieved from

  • 11. Ehlers, U. (2004). Quality in e-learning from a learner’s perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2004(1). Retrieved from

  • 12. Ellis, R., & Calvo, R. (2007). Minimum indicators to assure quality of LMS-supported blended learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 60-70.

  • 13. European Commission (2018). Proposal for a council recommendation on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the European dimension of teaching, COM (2018) 023 final.

  • 14. Garrison, R. (2000). Quality and access in distance education: Theoretical considerations. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 9-21). New York: Routledge.

  • 15. Gunawardena, C., & McIsaak, M. (2004). Distance education. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communities and technology (pp.355-395). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • 16. Inglis, Α. (2005). Quality improvement, quality assurance and benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 6(1).

  • 17. Jacobs, L., & DeWet, C. (2013). Evaluation of the Vocational Education Orientation Programme (VEOP) at a University in South Africa. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 68-89.

  • 18. Jung, Ι. (2012). Asian learners’ perception of quality in distance education and gender differences. The International Review in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 1-25.

  • 19. Kear, K., Rosewell, J., & Keith, W. (2012). Social networking and open educational resources: Updating quality assurance for e-learning excellence. Paper presented at the EADTU 25th Anniversary Conference “The Role of Open and Flexible Education in European Higher Education Systems for 2020: New Models, New Markets, New Media”, 27-28 September 2012, Paphos, Cyprus.

  • 20. Kidd, T., & Song, H. (2007). A case study of the adult learners’ perception of instructional quality in web-based online courses. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Online education for lifelong learning (pp. 271-291). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

  • 21. Lenert, K., & Janes, D. (2017). The incorporation of quality attributes into online course design in higher education. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 32(1). Retrieved from

  • 22. Letherby, G., & Bywaters, P. (2007). Extending social research: why? In G. Letherby & P. Bywaters (Eds.), Extending social research. Application, implementation and publication (pp. 19-36). Glasgow: Open University Press, McGraw Hill.

  • 23. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from

  • 24. Merisotis, J., & Phipps, R. (2000). Quality on the line. Benchmarks for success in internet based distance education. Washington: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.

  • 25. MOOQ. International organizations supporting the quality initiative MOOQ. Retrieved from

  • 26. Moore, M. G. (2000). Transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge.

  • 27. Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 66-85). New York: Routledge.

  • 28. Mystakidis, S., Kostopoulos, K., & Amanatidis, E. (2017). Preconditions for quality distance vocational training: The case of the Patras University Center for Vocational Education and Training. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference in Open & Distance Learning, November 2017, Athens, Greece.

  • 29. Official Journal of the European Union (2014). European Parliament resolution of 15 April 2014 on new technologies and open educational resources, 2017/C 443/05.

  • 30. Official Journal of the European Union (2017). Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on inclusion in diversity to achieve a high quality education for all, 2017/C 62/02.

  • 31. OpenupEd. OpenupEd Quality Label. Retrieved from

  • 32. Ossiannilsson, E. (2012). Quality enhancement on e-learning. Campus-wide Information Systems, 29(4), 312-323.

  • 33. Ossiannilsson, E., & Landgren, L. (2012). Quality in e-learning – Α conceptual framework based on experiences from three international benchmarking projects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 42-51.

  • 34. Peres, P., Lima, L., & Lima, V. (2014). B-learning quality: Dimensions, criteria and pedagogical approach. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 17(1), 56-75.

  • 35. Read, T., & Rodrigo, C. (2014). Toward a quality model for UNED MOOCs. eLearning Papers, 37, 43-50.

  • 36. Reis, R., Gomes, T., & Reis, B. (2008). Learning management systems in vocational schools. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 8(5), 580-590.

  • 37. ReΟpen. About the project. Retrieved from

  • 38. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

  • 39. Rogers, A. (2002). Teaching adults. Berkshire: Open University Press.

  • 40. Rosewell, J., & Jansen, D. (2014). The OpenupEd Quality Label: Benchmarks for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 3, 88-100.

  • 41. SEQUENT (2015). Supporting Quality in e-learning European Networks – SEQUENT. Retrieved from

  • 42. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

  • 43. Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33.

  • 44. Ubachs, G. (2009). E-xcellence. Quality assessment for e-learning: a benchmarking approach. Heerlen: EADTU.

  • 45. UNIQUe (2011). European Universities Quality in e-Learning. Information package. Brussels: EFQUEL.

  • 46. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Gaurain & Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp.34-40). New York: Scientific American Books.

  • 47. Wang, Y. C. (2014). Using wikis to facilitate interaction and collaboration among EFL learners: A social constructivist approach to language teaching. System, 42(1), 383-390.

  • 48. Ward, M., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 57-77.

  • 49. Williams, K. (2015). SEQUENT. Deliverable 4, Handbook for quality in e-learning procedures. Retrieved from

  • 50. Yeung, D. (2001). Toward an effective quality assurance model of web-based learning: The perspective of academic staff. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4). Retrieved from

  • 51. Yerevan Communiqué (2015). EHEA Ministerial Conference, Yerevan Communiqué 2015. Retrieved from

  • 52. Zawacki-Richter, O., Baker, E., & Vogt, S. (2009). Review of distance education research (2000 to 2008): Analysis of research areas, methods and authorship patterns. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 21-50.


Journal + Issues