Standard Measuring of E-Learning to Assess the Quality Level of E-Learning Outcomes: Saudi Electronic University Case Study

Abstract

Education in multiple forms and diverse geographical contexts delivers quality in all aspects of learning in which stakeholders such as students, instructors, and educational institutions play an important role. Quality assurance in higher education ensures the smooth functioning of the teaching and learning process by supporting the attainment of the desired quality levels of learning outcomes. This further leads to educational sustainability, as education has been acknowledged as a strategic constituent of sustainability-focused strategies in many educational contexts. Hence, it has become very important for educational institutions to maintain quality standards through the implementation of appropriate strategies, as quality is the lifeline of both Traditional Learning and E-Learning, and a lack of a suitable assessment standard affects the quality of learning. This research study attempts to address the existing gaps observed following a review of the related literature. This study collected qualitative data using an observation method through the observations and review of online software used at the Saudi Electronic University, namely Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS), Tawkeed Quality Management E-System, and Blue Survey software. In addition to this, the expertise of the research team members was also utilized for this research study in designing E-Learning quality dimensions. The purpose of this study was to propose an E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard that will help third-level educational institutions to assess their current teaching and learning practices of E-Learning and support them in enhancing the overall students’ experiences toward E-Learning within their institutions. As a research outcome, a conceptual quality assessment standard titled “SPECIFIERS” was proposed to offer a helping hand during the E-Learning quality assessment process to ensure sustainable education development of global educational institutions.

1. Introduction

Electronic learning (E-Learning) or online learning is an approach adopted in higher education to deliver teaching to students remotely or virtually through electronic channels, such as computers, tablets, laptops, and smartphones connected through an Internet Learning Management System (LMS) [1,2,3,4,5]. E-Learning, as a term, denotes a range of forms of Information Technology (IT) enabled learning, described as the application and use of conceptual knowledge and expertise to educate learners using the internet [6]. There is no single accepted definition of E-Learning available. However, it is known as an Internet-based learning method supplemented by E-Learning resources that can also support Traditional Learning [7,8,9,10,11]. At the present time, E-Learning is extensively accepted in universities and many institutions globally and enhances the teaching and learning experiences of their instructors and students.

E-Learning is not a new concept for the education sector, especially in higher education, as existing researchers have discovered countless benefits for all the stakeholders and acknowledged its growing importance [9,10,12]. In E-Learning settings, not all the stakeholders (students, instructors, universities, institutions, educators, etc.) involved in the teaching and learning process share a physical space for interactions. This has given an upsurge in spatial and progressive gaps that spotted attention-grabbing encounters for measuring the knowledge and skills achievement of students, as well as the quality level of E-Learning [13,14]. Quality is the key to the success of any service, as the higher the level of quality, the higher the students’ satisfaction. Education sustainability can be attained using innovative E-Learning tools, appropriate E-Learning materials, effective content delivery, technical support, etc. High-quality E-Learning can be delivered to students in line with the predefined Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). Although the quality of the course and program content has been assessed, there is little or no assessment of the entire E-Learning process-oriented approach [15,16,17]. E-Learning quality measurement requires determination and planning from the education sector to produce a scheme of appropriate E-Learning strategies for achieving Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) and PLOs [18,19,20]. Students’ attitudes toward E-Learning approaches have changed based on their overall experiences. Some students consider the Traditional Learning method better than E-Learning as they are used to this mode of learning. This has led to a decline in the acceptance and adoption of E-Learning systems due to negative attitudes towards E-Learning quality. Many students consider that learning through the traditional method of learning is more interactive, easier, and more fruitful and will make them more knowledgeable than the E-Learning method of learning [21,22,23].

Globally, the education sector has been witnessing an overhauling transformation with the rapid increase in the adoption of the latest technologies. In higher education, developed countries have made noteworthy advances toward embracing E-Learning platforms and started their transition from Traditional Learning to E-Learning [24,25,26,27]. However, a few studies have diagnosed serious challenges that inhibit E-Learning quality in the higher education sector of developing countries [27,28]. Hence, it has become particularly important to measure E-Learning quality in the context of the global educational environment. A quality self-assessment model for virtual/online education from an accessibility viewpoint is required to assess E-Learning quality [29]. For the effective accomplishment of educational outcomes, the main key factor in education is having access to quality assurance models, which led to a budding global concentration on identifying E-Learning quality models, both in education and in a general context. E-Learning quality models have been found to act as effective tools in the administration of educational institutions, provided they are appropriately employed [30]. In this disruptive environment, there is a need for a standard measurement to assess the quality of E-Learning [13,19,31,32]. Traditional Learning at a university has levels of teaching quality that vary from instructor to instructor, course to course, and program to program. E-Learning is no exception because, within a university, there may also be variations in E-Learning quality. The quality of E-Learning depends on many factors, such as the course materials, IT infrastructure, and course evaluations, in catering to the needs of all the stakeholders [33]. Regardless of numerous debates around E-Learning quality and the exploration of pertinent E-Learning quality dimensions, there is still no single standard for measuring the effectiveness of E-Learning using comprehensive quality review dimensions [34,35].

There is also a further need to uncover the answer to the stated research question, i.e., What are the key dimensions for measuring E-Learning quality? Eliminating variation in the level of E-Learning quality requires devising a standard measuring model for assessing E-Learning quality in order to maintain the desired minimum level of E-Learning quality across a university program by achieving the quality level of learning outcomes. This was the fundamental objective that led to this research project at the Saudi Electronic University (SEU) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This research study will contribute to the functioning of third-level educational institutions by supporting them in assessing their current E-Learning practices by applying the proposed assessment standard to assess the quality level of E-Learning outcomes. This will further help higher education institutions in their education sustainability. The main aim of the study is to offer a quality assessment standard for assessing the quality level of E-Learning outcomes at SEU. This research applied qualitative data methods through the observation method in which the online software used at the Saudi Electronic University for the current and past activities will be observed and reviewed. In addition, the existing literature related to this study theme will be reviewed to identify key E-Learning quality dimensions to create and propose an E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard. The expertise of this research team will also be taken into consideration while designing this proposed assessment standard.

2. Literature Review

This section discusses the literature on E-Learning quality assessment standards, frameworks, and models. After a review of the existing literature related to E-Learning quality assessment standards, models, and frameworks, key E-Learning quality dimensions will be identified. Service quality is a parameter for gauging the gap in customers’ expectations between the services they desired and those they received [36]. This can be further defined as the discrepancy between consumers’ perceptions of service providers and their expectations of the overall services [37,38,39,40,41]. Education is no exception to the need to measure the service quality of E-Learning. Students, who are the consumers of education services, behave similarly to the customers of other sectors. By making a comparison between what they were expecting and what they received, one can identify this difference. Students’ experience of education service delivery surrounded the delivery mechanism and the overall quality determinants responsible for variation in the quality of the E-Learning delivery [42,43]. When students found inconsistency in the desired and actual quality of course materials and activities, curriculum, content design, support services, etc., offered by their university, they became dissatisfied with the quality of the E-Learning service [44]. Hence, for today’s educators, maintaining quality has become particularly challenging, as quality is a key success factor in shaping educational institutions’ credibility among student communities worldwide [44].

Different studies have attempted to identify E-Learning quality assurance standard measurement methods that can be utilized for the evaluation of E-Learning [45,46]. For example, [34] focused on the need for suitable infrastructure, especially IT infrastructure, in determining the smooth delivery of high-quality education. Course materials and activities can be designed and improved to make learning more interactive in nature. Interactive communication between students and faculty members is possible throughout the program duration using innovative tools, such as the LMS being loaded with innovative features designed on the foundation of advanced technologies. Universities are required to conduct surveys regarding quality in order to obtain feedback related to their courses and course materials, content delivery, faculty members, and their performance and teaching styles [34]. This type of feedback can then be used for redefining E-Learning quality standards. This was demonstrated as a standard for understanding students’ perceptions of the E-Learning process. Technology played a significant role in shaping the standards of the E-Learning teaching process. Universities and institutions had to offer instant feedback to their students, as delayed academic performance feedback could affect their academic performance. Regulations were also designed and implemented to resolve students’ and faculty members’ issues related to E-Learning platforms, courses, etc. [28,34]. Technology plays a key role in shaping students’ perception of E-Learning, as technical challenges, such as poor internet connectivity and a lack of technical support, could lead to students becoming distracted when using E-Learning systems. A lack of IT tools (computers, laptops, tablets, etc.), insufficient computer laboratories, and poor internet network connectivity have been observed as the key obstacles to delivering and ensuring E-Learning quality [27,47].

A lack of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) infrastructure and bad internet network connectivity were also found to be a hindrance to the acceptance and adoption of E-Learning systems. Wider internet bandwidth could improve E-Learning service delivery quality and add value to the overall satisfaction of students [48,49]. All these factors helped build a good and healthy learning environment in universities and have assisted in maintaining higher E-Learning quality standards. At the University-level teaching requires a high level of quality for course content and program delivery due to its traditional nature [33]. The variety in educational offerings of various programs and courses varied from one discipline to another. Quality assurance is required when content is designed, developed, and delivered [33]. When universities delivered programs through E-Learning, maintaining quality standards became difficult, and the same was observed in several existing studies [33], which offered suggestions for maintaining quality standards. By implementing a review system to ensure a satisfactory quality level of E-Learning through all the courses and programs offered by a university. Without appropriate and well-designed educational strategies in the context of E-Learning, a high level of quality was impossible to deliver, as there was no specific method available for validating course content quality, the effectiveness of the delivery style, and the level of satisfaction in respect of E-Learning quality standard measurement [50]. Validating learning quality was emphasized in addressing these issues and concluded with an E-Learning validation framework, using parameters that included E-Learning benchmarking determinants and learning assessment through a quality survey to ensure the required quality improvements in education was deliverables [50]. A similar finding was observed and investigated standard measurements of E-Learning quality which ensured that course and program learning outcomes were attained in the form of students’ knowledge development and increased skills [51].

Various measurement parameters were used, such as faculty services, student services, e-support systems, and the credibility of an institution through its commitment to students in terms of quality assurance [51]. These parameters were found to be helpful in the evaluation of the overall quality of E-Learning, and after observing the gaps between actual and observed Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs), the necessary steps could be taken to maintain a minimum quality level of E-Learning outcomes. The role of faculty members and staff became vital in this endeavor [51]. Similar research work was conducted, which pointed towards developing the skills of the faculty and other academic staff by training them in E-content design, development, and delivery to ensure the required quality standard was delivered during the E-Learning process [52]. Various skills-based short-term training programs or workshops according to the levels and responsibilities of teaching and non-teaching staff were found to be helpful in ensuring program delivery in accordance with quality standards [52]. It was not an easy task for universities, as well as educational institutions throughout the globe, to decide and ensure which would be the most appropriate matrix for E-Learning quality measurement. Due to the heterogeneous nature of educational offerings in the form of different courses and programs, there was a need to cater to the education industry’s requirements [51,52]. In the past, many institutions have tried to identify major determinants that could act as a means of E-Learning quality assurance. In today’s competitive world, quality is everything; no quality standard leads to no credibility. Various leading universities started to conduct research to devise a measurement model for monitoring E-Learning quality through the implementation of quality standards departments that could offer a line of vision and a mission [52]. It was not possible to devise and have a single best-fit global measurement matrix for E-Learning quality standards assurance. The learning outcomes of courses and programs of universities globally were not the same. Although many researchers tried to devise a quality assurance framework, there has not been a single unique global measurement model developed [46].

2.1. Key Identified E-Learning Quality Assessment Standards Employed in Other Countries

Countries, namely the United States of America (USA), Australia, Canada, Netherlands and Belgium, Norway, and the United Kingdom (UK), are home to some of the highest-ranked universities around the world, with world-class education systems that have long histories of academic excellence. They have an assortment of high-tech modern university teaching practices following quality assessment standards [53,54,55]. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was selected to know the current E-Learning Quality Assessment standards employed in Saudi Arabian educational institutions. All these countries were selected because of their world-renowned high-quality education having tried-and-tested curricula applying quality assessment standards to reinforce diverse educational learning programs [53,54,55]. The selected countries and identified key E-Learning quality assessment standards are as stated.

2.1.1. United States of America (USA)

In the USA, a private national non-profit organization known as the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has been coordinating educational accreditation activities by supporting and mentoring universities and higher education institutions. The main significant areas that are consistently studied by CHEA in higher education are institutional organization structure, curriculum and instruction, institutional mission, institutional resources, student learning outcomes, and student and faculty support [55].

2.1.2. Australia

The Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning (ACODE) assists universities that are involved in delivering teaching through distance, flexible, open, and E-Learning approaches. The major emphasis is on ensuring E-Learning quality through stated E-Learning benchmarks: 1. Planning for and quality improvement of the integration of technologies for learning and teaching; 2. Institution policy and governance for technology-supported learning and teaching; 3. Pedagogical application of information and communications technology; 4. Information technology infrastructure to support learning and teaching; 5. Professional/staff development for the effective use of technologies for learning and teaching; 6. Student training for the effective use of technologies for learning; 7. Staff support for the use of technologies for learning and teaching; and 8. Student support for the use of technologies for learning [55].

2.1.3. Canada

Canada has no specific standard for measuring the quality of education as there is no organization or national accrediting agency to accredit the educational programs in the country. However, a few academic and professional bodies and educational agencies have been performing the task of assessing the quality of education. Hence, in the absence of any authorized organization, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) has been conducting internal quality assessments for all its institutions’ programs to ensure acceptable standards in Canadian higher education [55].

2.1.4. Netherlands and Belgium

The programs offered by higher education in the Netherlands and Belgium (as Flanders is part of Belgian territory) are judged and accredited by the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO). The NVAO brings out quality assurance through an accreditation system in which it assesses programs offered by Dutch universities conferring certain rules and criteria for the enhancement of the quality of higher education. However, the NVAO website has no details on how to measure E-Learning quality using any specific standards [55].

2.1.5. Norway

The quality of higher education in Norway is judged by the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT). Another national agency, Norway Opening Universities (NOU), has not formulated any standard dimensions for measuring the quality of E-Learning but still plays a vital role in enriching the quality of higher education. As a cooperation project of leading universities in Norway, the Norwegian Networked University (NNU) has framed internal quality standards for measuring E-Learning quality [55].

2.1.6. United Kingdom (UK)

Higher education quality in the UK is assessed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Universities in the UK have formed a membership organization known as the Higher Education Academy (HEA) to deliver enriched teaching and learning experiences to all stakeholders. The HEA is currently benchmarking the quality of E-Learning in the majority of UK universities by supporting the enhancement of internal quality processes with a major emphasis on three key areas: 1. Learning materials, i.e., printed text, e-books, audio, and/or visual materials, CD-ROMs (text/simulations) and DVDs (multi-media learning materials); 2. Learning services, i.e., digital resources in a virtual library, laboratory experience, career guidance, helpdesk (for online operation), call centers for general advice; and 3. Student support, i.e., face-to-face tutoring for course materials, online tutoring, feedback on assignments, and one-to-one support by telephone or email [55].

2.1.7. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

In the context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Education frames policy for all universities and institutions throughout the kingdom and seeks to maintain the quality of education in line with global standards by adopting innovative mechanisms for internal quality assessment. SEU, as the pioneer in the blended learning approach, has its own standards for measuring the quality of E-Learning, using various mechanisms to ensure that it would be in the league of top global educational institutions that have redefined the educational sector by delivering excellence through their programs and practices. Based on the above review of the literature, the following table presents the E-Learning quality dimensions used in research studies (See

Table 1. Exploration of related articles to identify E-Learning Quality Dimensions.

Author(s)-Year Key Identified E-Learning Quality Dimensions
Timbi-Sisalima et al.-2022 [29] Student support, IT Infrastructure
Alam et al.-2021 [56] Service quality, System quality
Chen-2021 [57] Survey, Evaluation
Klašnja-Milićević & Ivanović-2021 [58] Regulations
Choudhury & Pattnaik-2020 [59] Institutional support, Technology design,
E-Learning environment, Evaluation
Lee et al.-2019 [60] Survey, Institutional factors
Mahony & Hall-2017 [61] Technological environment
Sadeghi-2017 [62] Technical support, Evaluation, Resource support
Azeiteiro et al.-2015 [63] Resource materials, Evaluation
Masoumi & Lindström-2012 [64] Course structure, Institutional support, Evaluation,
Faculty support, Student support, IT support
Jung-2011 [51] Faculty support, Student support,
Resource materials and IT infrastructure
Allen & Seaman-2010 [65] Course structure, Institutional support,
Faculty support, Student support, Evaluation
Sangrà & González-Sanmamed-2010 [66] Institutional capability, Learning delivery services
Lee-Post-2009 [67] System quality, Service quality
Hansson-2008 [55] Instructional materials, Faculty support, Student support, Institutional support, Regulations, IT support Marshall et al.-2007 [68] Institutional support, Commitment
Institutional support, Regulations, IT support
Pawlowski-2007 [69] Faculty support, Student support, Evaluation
Fresen-2007 [70] Institutional factors, Technology factors, Instructional design
Johnson-2006 [71] IT infrastructure
Ehlers-2004 [72] Faculty support, IT support

).

3. Methodology

The present study is based on a qualitative approach. Case studies and extant reviews of the literature approaches are used in this study according to a mixed method choice proposed in prior studies [73]. A similar approach has been used in a study conducted in Portugal to assess the sustainable education development effectiveness through E-Learning in higher education in a case study of Universidade Aberta [63]. Another similar study by a university in central Taiwan from 2018 to 2020 was conducted using “iLearn2.0”l E-learning platform. The study has investigated sustainable education through E-Learning [57]. In our study, the case study of Saudi Electronic University (SEU) has been taken, and the observations of online software, i.e., the E-Learning system used between 2019–2021 at the university level for current and past activities, are performed. In addition to the observation of the software, there are other observation activities that have been conducted during the implementation of the E-exam initiative as well as the transformation of E-Learning which supports the building of E-Learning quality assessment standards. This kind of observation started at SEU in 2013 when the main decisions and discussions of the E-Learning activities were analyzed by the committee that was responsible for these activities. The researchers here were part of these committees, and all the documentation is in Arabic and confidential for sharing. In addition to this, existing works in the literature related to this study are reviewed to identify key E-Learning quality dimensions for designing an E-Learning quality assessment standard. The expertise of the research team members has also been utilized for this research study in designing E-Learning quality dimensions.

3.1. Data Collection

The observation of current and past activities was carried out from the perspectives of the administrators, faculty members, and students, where it was carried out through committees that were responsible for the E-Learning activities. In addition, an analysis of the history of online software used during the observation period (since 2013), i.e., the SEU E-Learning system, namely, Blackboard Learning Management System, Tawkeed Quality Management E-System, and Blue Survey Software used at SEU was carried out. The first online software used for this study was Blackboard Learning Management System which has been used for blended learning (Face-to-Face and Virtual) courses at SEU to provide a convenient interface for conducting virtual sessions, students’ tests, and assignments, uploading course materials and activities, grading students’ work, and interacting with students using integrated communication tools. The second online software used for this study was Tawkeed Quality Management E-System which has been used by SEU to ensure the quality of the administrative process and educational process aiming to achieve the highest levels of quality by allowing faculty members to complete their tasks professionally and smoothly, in relation to forms of Education and Training Evaluation Commission (Accreditation Center), and to ensure the availability, completeness, and accuracy of data to meet the requirements of local and international institutional and program accreditations. Finally, the third online software used was Blue Survey Software which is an online survey software used at SEU to assess E-Learning quality using formative and summative assessments having questionnaires related to the Course assessment, Professor/Instructor assessment, and General assessment. Relevant research articles related to E-Learning quality standards were downloaded for the review purpose of identifying key dimensions of E-Learning Quality standards. In addition to this, the research team consists of four members who were working in different positions at SEU, namely Assistant Professor (Instructor), Head of Department, College Dean, and Professor (Instructor). The expertise of these research team members working with the quality department of the related committee was also taken into consideration as a part of the observation methods.

3.2. Data Analysis

The existing literature review was thoroughly analyzed and reviewed to obtain the various dimensions used in the present study. After reviewing the existing literature, key E-Learning Quality dimensions were identified, which have been tabulated in Table 1. After this process, the online software used at SEU, namely Blackboard Learning Management System, Tawkeed Quality Management E-System, and Blue Survey Software, were observed and reviewed. Blackboard LMS was observed and reviewed over three years, i.e., 2019, 2020, and 2021. 2020 and 2021 were among the periods of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. The Tawkeed Quality Management E-System was observed and reviewed for one year, i.e., 2021, as it was launched in December 2020 at SEU. The Blue Survey Software was observed and reviewed over three years, i.e., 2019, 2020, and 2021. “Survey” as an E-Learning quality dimension was adopted from the Blue Survey software. The E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard was created by the researchers after the analysis of the existing literature and online software observation and its review used at SEU, and this assessment standard was proposed as the research outcome. The creation of a conceptual assessment standard to assess quality levels of E-Learning outcomes was performed with the expertise of research team members at SEU.

4. Key Observations

The key observations of this research work were made based on the review of online software, i.e., the SEU E-Learning system used at SEU, namely Blackboard LMS, Tawkeed Quality Management E-System, and Blue Survey Software. Apart from this, the researchers’ observations and experiences as SEU employees were also recorded. The announcement of the start of the academic terms was made by the university in the month of August in the year 2019, 2020, and 2021 and meetings at various department levels were called by the heads of the departments of different colleges at SEU.

The agenda of the departmental meetings was to plan the smooth functioning of the teaching and learning processes by delivering a high degree of quality in all aspects of learning and enhancing the course materials, course activities, and course assessments. At the conclusion of these meetings, the quality supervisor of each department would review the Master Course File and offer actions to be taken on the contents of the file. The course coordinator acted on the Master Course File, and this was again reviewed at the department level. The academic term at SEU started at the end of August for the academic years 2019, 2020, and 2021. Lectures were delivered in blended mode (i.e., face-to-face and virtual sessions). All the course materials were made available for the students, and course-related information was provided by posting announcements, as well as instructors announcing their respective sessions. The course assessment was conducted through coursework, the mid-term exam, and the final exam in order to assess the attainment levels of the Course Learning Outcomes/Objectives (CLOs) among the students (see Figure 1). During these academic years, surveys with an evaluation form were conducted to assess the E-Learning quality, which was carried out by the quality departments of each college using the “Blue Survey” software. SEU, as an educational institution, is committed to ensuring the quality of its academic programs and better students’ learning experiences. This course evaluation framework allowed instructors to view live response rates of their respective courses so that they could ascertain their response rate and encourage students to carry out an evaluation (see Figure 2).

The quality survey of the E-Commerce department was selected for this research study which was shown in Figure 2 as a “Subject View Management Task List” to understand the criteria of this course survey and for this purpose, “Blue Survey” software was used by SEU which consisted of questions designed by SEU to survey the Course assessment, Professor/Instructor assessment, and General assessment via a questionnaire based on a five-point Likert scale. This scale has been widely used as an approach to scale responses in survey research and was the foundation of the student course-instructor feedback. The scale was as follows: Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Medium (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly Disagree (1). Strengths and areas for improvement were identified based on the survey results. For this study, the available data collected from this software were analyzed.

The quality survey using Blue Survey software was conducted by SEU at the end of every semester to understand the students’ degree of satisfaction with the course, and the survey questions were designed by SEU based on the three competencies, namely, Course Evaluation, Faculty Evaluation, and General Evaluation. An evaluation summary was prepared by the Blue Survey software based on students’ responses to obtain the score summary (see

Table 2. Evaluation summary template taken from Tawkeed Quality Management E-System.

Evaluation Area Department Average Standard Deviation			Min	Max
Course Evaluation:	≥3.00	To be calculated after survey	3.00	5.00
Faculty Evaluation:	≥3.00	To be calculated after survey	3.00	5.00
General Evaluation:	≥3.00	To be calculated after survey	3.00	5.00
Total Score:	≥3.00

). If the overall scores were ≥3.00, it would indicate that the course had attained threshold status, i.e., “Met”; in the case of a score <3.00, the course had not attained threshold status, and this was recorded as “Not Met.” High scores (i.e., >4.00) could be interpreted as a student consensus indicating the strength of the course. However, low scores (i.e., <3.00) should be considered as indicating an area for improvement that requires immediate developmental focus, according to students’ feedback. To know the effectiveness of this survey platform, sample data collected by this system as students’ responses were analyzed by the Blue Survey software. For this research study, the research team took the quality survey data of the E-Commerce department for the academic year 2020–21 (Summer semester), and the data statistics were as stated in Figure 3, and the competency evaluation score summary for the same has been summarized in

Table 3. Competency Evaluation Summary for the academic year 2020–21 (Summer semester).

Competency	Department Average	College Average	University Average	Standard Deviation	Min	Max
Course assessment	4.31	4.2	4.26	+/−0.97	3	5
Professor assessment	4.41	4.34	4.39	+/−1.03	3	5
General assessment	4.23	4.13	4.2	+/−1.01	3	5
Total Score	4.32

. These data were taken as an example to explain how a quality survey had been conducted to know the levels of E-Learning outcomes at the SEU.

Here, it was observed that all three competencies attained the threshold status, i.e., “Met” status as the assessment score for all the three stated competencies, i.e., Course assessment, Professor assessment, and General assessment were found to be above 3.00, and the averages at the department level, at the college level, and the university level were above 3.00 which was the minimum threshold level. These survey findings helped the research team in adding “Survey” as one of the E-Learning quality dimensions in the proposed assessment standard as the tenth review standard.

During the period in which the mid-term and final exams took place, another survey was conducted by the Administration Team to obtain students’ feedback regarding issues with the semester work, which consists of the mid-term and the final exams. The university’s Technical Team would conduct a survey to ascertain the technical issues faced by students during course assessments. The feedback was recorded and forwarded to the head of the department for further courses of action. The results of the course/program were prepared, checked, approved, and published by the authorities concerned. After this process, the Quality Department instructed the Course Coordinator to prepare the course specification, and once this was approved by the Quality Department, course instructors were asked to prepare and submit their respective course reports over the Tawkeed Quality Management E-System platform for approval by the Course Coordinator, followed by the Quality Supervisor’s approval.

Later, the Integrated Course Report containing details of the overall performance of the students on the course was prepared by the Course Coordinator. The action plan for the following term was proposed by the Course Coordinator based on the survey feedback and suggestions received from students, as well as suggestions from the course instructors (see Figure 4).

The Integrated Course Report was submitted, and after receiving approval from the Quality Assistant, the course file was prepared by the Course Coordinator and submitted for review by the Quality Department (see Figure 5). The Integrated Course Report and Course File were reviewed and approved by the Quality Assistant and were then forwarded to the Quality Supervisor for further review and approval. The Department Chair approved and forwarded them to the Accreditation Department after a review. The action plan suggested in the Integrated Course Report was noted by the internal committee for conducting departmental meetings to decide how to improve the existing levels of quality before the start of the new academic term (see Figure 5). The Master Course File was then revised by the respective Course Coordinator after it had been approved by the Internal Quality Assessment Committee before the start of the new academic term. This ELQAC was maintained for every academic term. The Blackboard LMS was also observed during this research work to learn how this platform supports E-Learning quality measurement and to investigate whether there was an assessment standard adopted by SEU for measuring the quality level of E-Learning outcomes.

No specific course tool or option was found on the Blackboard LMS homepage as an assessment standard for measuring E-Learning to assess the quality level of E-Learning outcomes of the courses taught at SEU (see Figure 6). Hence, it became crucial to create and propose an assessment standard for SEU to measure the quality level of E-Learning outcomes.

5. Proposed E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard

A conceptual E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard was created and proposed for assessing the quality level of E-Learning outcomes at SEU using the “SPECIFIERS” assessment standard. The word “SPECIFIERS” stands for Student Services, Program delivery, Evaluation, Course overview, Instructional materials and activities, Faculty services, Institutional commitment, Electronic Support System, Regulations, and Survey. In this proposed assessment standard, ten review standards are formulated, as in Figure 7 and

Table 4. Annotations of the proposed E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard.

Standard Criteria	Points Assigned	Aims	Criteria Levels	Evidence	Results	Status
EQRS 1: 1.1 Availability of student services. (1 point) 1.2 Mode of availability of student services. (1 point) 1.3 Tutorials on how to access student services. (1 point)	3	Student services enable students to access institutional support services, such as an admissions-related link, registration-related link, academic advising-related link, raising tickets for course- and program-related issues, etc.	1-Moderately Important 1 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.   Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 2: Program delivery 2.1 Program outline and Program schedule are available and easy to access. (3 points) 2.2 The Program- Level Objectives (PLOs) are available, aligned with course contents, coursework, semester work, and course activities. These are measurable. (3 points) 2.3 The Course-Level Objectives (CLOs) are available, aligned with course contents, coursework, semester work, and course activities. These are measurable. (3 points) 2.4 The Module-Level Objectives (MLOs) are available and are aligned with course contents, coursework, semester work, and course activities. These are measurable. (3 points) 2.5 MLOs support the CLOs and the CLOs further support the PLOs. (3 points) 2.6 LMS and other related applications are supporting the teaching and learning process and are easy to access.(3 points) 2.7 Tutorial videos related to program information are available and easy to access. (3 points)	21	Program delivery enables attaining the vision and mission statement of the institute by aligning MLOs with CLOs, and CLOs with PLOs.	3-Extremely Important 3 points: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 3: Evaluation of the course 3.1 Evaluation strategies are suitable and able to assess the E-Learning quality. (3 points) 3.2 Grade distribution plan is available and stated clearly. (3 points) 3.3 Course Grading policy and course guidelines. (3 points) 3.4 Attainment levels of PLOs, CLOs, and MLOs are easy to measure. (3 points) 3.5 Evaluation comments and feedback are available for students. (3 points)	15	Evaluation of the course is employed in a way that links to the PLOs, CLOs, and MLOs. It will further enable students to know their academic progress throughout the course. Instructors can also mentor students based on the course evaluation to perform well in their respective courses.	3-Extremely Important 3 points: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 4: Course overview 4.1 Start here option is available. (2 points) 4.2 Course description is available. (2 points) 4.3 Course objectives are stated clearly. (2 points) 4.4 Coursework and course activities are available, easy to access, and stated clearly. (2 points) 4.5 Course structure and syllabus are available. (2 points) 4.6 Course schedule is available. (2 points) 4.7 Course calendar is available. (2 points) 4.8 Tutorial videos related to how to advance in the course are available and easy to understand. (2 points) 4.9 Instructor information is available and easy to access. (2 points) 4.10 Communication link to interact with the course instructor is available and easy to access. (2 points) 4.11 Information related to the technical requirements and the IT skills required for the course are available and clearly stated. (2 points)	22	The course overview enables students to identify course-related information that will further assist them in knowing the course requirements well in advance to set their academic goals.	2-Important 2 points: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met” 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met”	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 5: Instructional materials and activities 5.1 Instructional materials are available and easy to access. (3 points) 5.2 Alignment of instructional materials with PLOs, CLOs and MLOs has been performed properly. (3 points) 5.3 Linkage of instructional materials with activities on the course is clearly visible. (3 points) 5.4 Instructional materials are relevant, accurate, and authentic. (3 points) 5.5 Variety of instructional materials, such as e-books, video links, web links, discussion forum, etc., are available. (3 points)	15	Instructional materials enable students to attain PLOs, CLOs, and MLOs. Instructors can use a variety of instructional strategies for enhancing the levels of the quality of the teaching and learning process.	3-Extremely Important 3 points: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 6: Faculty services 6.1 Technical tools or links for interacting with students are available for the faculty. (1 point) 6.2 Availability of faculty services to resolve faculty members issues related to academics. (1 point) 6.3 Mode (Online/Offline/Both) of availability of faculty services. (1 point) 6.4 Tutorials videos for faculty members on how to access faculty services. (1 point)	4	The faculty services enable faculty members to access institutional support services, such as employment-related informative links, career advancement-related links, raising tickets for course- and program-related issues links, etc.	1-Moderately Important 1 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 7: Institutional commitment 7.1 Institute’s commitment towards delivering E-Learning quality is visible and is aligned with the vision and mission statements. (1 point) 7.2 Institute has been taking regular and appropriate steps towards delivering quality in learning. (1 point) 7.3 Institute is investing time and money to fulfil its commitment. (1 point)	3	Institutional commitment to supporting the stakeholders, such as students, faculty members, and other staff at the institute, in understanding the vision and mission statement of the institute. By understanding the institute commitment, each will contribute their best and try to succeed in their endeavour.	1-Moderately Important 1 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 8: Electronic support systems 8.1 LMSs are easy to use and support the teaching and learning process. (1 point) 8.2 Technical support service is available for both students and instructors. (1 point) 8.3 Tutorial videos are available for first-time visitors. (1 point) 8.4 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are available. (1 point) 8.5 Technical support is available 24 × 7. (1 point) 8.6 Technical support is available through multiple platforms. (1 point)	6	The electronic support systems enable students to access the technical support provided by the institution.	1-Moderately Important 1 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 9: Regulations 9.1 Program and course regulations are available and stated clearly. (1 point) 9.2 Exam regulations are available and stated clearly. (1 point) 9.3 Administrative regulations are available and stated clearly. (1 point) 9.4 Admission and registration regulations are available and stated clearly. (1 point) 9.5 Disciplinary regulations are available and stated clearly. (1 point)	5	Regulations enable the institute in the smooth functioning of all its academic obligations by delivering quality in all aspects of the teaching and learning process.	1-Moderately Important 1 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.
EQRS 10: Survey 10.1 Program-related survey is conducted. (1 point) 10.2 Course content-related survey is conducted on a regular basis. (1 point) 10.3 Coursework- related survey is conducted. (1 point) 10.4 Semester work- related survey is conducted. (1 point) 10.5 Instructor-related survey is conducted. (1 point) 10.6 Technical service satisfaction-related survey is conducted. (1 point)	6	Survey enables faculties, higher authorities, Quality Department, and policy makers in delivering quality in all their endeavors. They will understand the gap between what is expected and what was delivered.	1-Moderately Important 1 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Met" 0 point: At least two out of three reviewers must decide it was "Not Met"	Available and stated clearly. Available, but not stated clearly. Neither available nor stated clearly.	Met/Not Met	Red Zone: Immediate action is required to address the issue.    Yellow Zone: Action is required before it becomes catastrophic and moves to the Red Zone.    Green Zone: Continuous improvements must be carried on either to maintain the status or to improve it.

. The proposed SPECIFIERS assessment standard has ten E-Learning Quality Review Standards (EQRS) containing three levels of review criteria and based on the level of importance, points have been assigned for each criterion. The three types of review criteria, “Extremely Important,” worth three points each, “Important,” worth two points each, and “Moderately Important,” worth one point, have been employed in this proposed assessment standard. There are 17 Extremely Important standard criteria worth 51 points, 11 Important standard criteria worth 22 points, and 27 Moderately Important standard criteria worth 27 points. The total assigned points for all 55 EQRS are 100 points, and a minimum of 60 points out of 100 points are required to be rated.

The “Red Status” will be assigned for points below 60, the “Yellow Status” will be assigned for points from 60 to 79, and the “Green Status” will be assigned for points above 79. An A+ rating will be given for points ranging from 95 to 100, an A rating for points from 90 to 94, a B+ rating for points ranging from 85 to 89, a B rating for points ranging from 80 to 84, a C+ rating for points ranging from 75 to 79, a C rating for points ranging from 70 to 74, a D+ rating for points ranging from 65 to 69, and a D rating for points ranging from 60 to 64. No rating will be given for points below 60. A team of three reviewers will be formulated to review E-Learning quality at SEU, preferably not from the same department. The 10 EQRS having 55 standard criteria will be used for the review purposes, and the decisions will be based on the majority, i.e., at least two out of the three reviewers must give their decisions as “Met,” i.e., total points above 59. A “Not Met” decision will be made when at least two of the three reviewers have given less than 60 points. All 17 Extremely Important standard criteria worth 51 points must be achieved completely by 100%. In cases in which the sum of awarded points for a course/program is above 60 and all 17 Extremely Important standard criteria have not been achieved, no ratings will be given, and the decision taken will be “Not Met.” The “Red Status” will be assigned to such course/program that has not met 100% of the 17 Extremely Important standard criteria, even if it has met all 11 Important standard criteria and 27 Moderately Important standard criteria. A review manager will head the review team and submit the reports to the concerned departments at the university level for further courses of action. All the stakeholders, such as the technical support team, the quality supervisor, the course coordinator, and the head of the department, are suggested to address the proposed actions offered by the review team depending on the level of the course/ program. By conducting departmental meetings/institute-level meetings, all the above stakeholders may consider discussions on the reviewer’s report to identify areas of improvement and actions to be taken that can be discussed and implemented. An individual who will be responsible for implementing the respective action plans can be assigned. The technical support team will address technical issues, the course coordinator will address course-related issues, the quality supervisor will address issues related to quality standards of the course/program as per the university norms, and the head of the department will act as a liaison among all these stakeholders and offer mentorship to them. In addition to this, a review team at the university level can be formulated who will be responsible for all the actions to bring quality to all aspects of learning, such as conducting workshops to train all the stakeholders. The requirements can be listed along with a timeline for the action plans, and the progress of the action plans can be shared on a common platform so that everyone can access the status of the ongoing actions. An E-Learning assessment worksheet is suggested to use to track the progress of the ongoing action plans.

The actions to be taken for areas of improvement, the person responsible for implementing actions, E-Learning requirements, completion timeline, and remarks on the ongoing progress of measuring E-Learning to assess the quality level of E-Learning outcomes at SEU can be updated in the above E-Learning assessment worksheet (see

Table 5. E-Learning Quality Assessment Worksheet consisting of points distribution, decisions, and action plan to be implemented.

Points Range	Decision (Met/Not Met)	Status	Course Quality Ratings	Actions to Be Taken for Areas of Improvement	Person Responsible for Implementing Actions	E-Learning Requirements	Completion Timeline	Remarks
0–59	Not Met	Red Zone	No Rating
60–64	Met	Yellow Zone	D Rating
65–69			D+ Rating
70–74			C Rating
75–79			C+ Rating
80–84	Met	Green Zone	B Rating
85–89			B+ Rating
90–94			A Rating
95–100			A+ Rating

). It is also suggested to rate faculty members, textbooks, web links, and IT applications with A/A+/B/B+/C/C+/D/D+ ratings based on students’ feedback and comments collected through the quality survey. This would enable the level of competitiveness to be increased among faculty members and all other stakeholders who are working to deliver desired E-Learning quality levels in all aspects of learning.

6. Discussions and Implications of the Study

6.1. Case Study of SEU: An Overview

A royal decree was issued by His excellency King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, the custodian of the two holy mosques, on 8th October 2011 to launch the Saudi Electronic University (SEU) as a government educational institution that offers both graduate and undergraduate degree programs along with lifelong learning to complement other educational institutions under the umbrella of the Higher Education Council. The university includes the College of Administration and Finance Sciences, the College of Computing and Informatics, the College of Health Sciences, and the College of Science and Theoretical Studies. There were 13 departments at SEU, namely Business Administration, Finance, E-Commerce, Accountancy, Information Technology, Computer Science, Public Health, Health Informatics, Electronic Media, Law, English, Humanities, and Basic Sciences [74].

The university awards graduate and undergraduate degrees along with courses in continuous and lifelong learning. The university is in the capital Riyadh and has expanded by opening branches in other regions according to the university’s approved plan. It aims to obtain national and international academic accreditation to elevate the quality of its outputs. The university also provides higher education based on optimal learning models, applying applications and technologies of electronic and blended learning, which combines direct attendance and attendance via technology. The university also aims to transfer and localize pioneering knowledge in cooperation with universities, bodies, and faculty members nationally and internationally, with high-quality educational content from academic quality sources and localize it in line with the requirements of Saudi society [74]. In addition, it supports the mission and concept of lifelong learning for all society members. It is a governmental electronic university that depends on distance educational methods by using advanced technologies. The university provides an excellent and qualified modern education for all society members, according to the highest quality standards and best international practices. The university also contributes to increasing the production efficiency of higher education institutions. In addition, it enhances the international presence of the Kingdom through the publication of Arabic and science and knowledge [74].

6.2. Discussions

Quality has become strategic distress for educational institutions globally, which are involved in both Traditional Learning and E-Learning [75]. E-Learning is not the same as Traditional Learning, and as a result, the same quality assessment approaches and standards would not be useful to both types of learning [76,77]. However, it was found that many educational institutions use similar quality criteria for E-Learning assessment as for other modes of delivery [78]. In another study, an assessment model was presented to evaluate the quality of online programs itself that were offered by online Higher Education, but the study was based on bibliographical analysis. However, this research is based on observation methods in which online software used at Saudi Electronic University and its related documents were observed and aimed to propose an E-Learning Quality assessment standard for the assessment of quality levels of E-Learning outcomes. Furthermore, other research findings demonstrated that the medium of the course delivery was occasionally among the factors responsible for E-Learning quality [79,80,81]. Nowadays, it is evident that quality assessment has become an assurance and success factor in the diverse programs and courses designing, development, and implementation in a very wide assortment of domains. For this reason, in the field of education, continuous information from different stakeholders such as students and instructors is required for quality assessment process, and quality assessment must be understood as an indispensable and elementary part of the quality evaluation processes of E-Learning. To eliminate these varied quality levels of learning outcomes, it is crucial to devise a standard to assess the E-Learning quality levels that might further confirm the minimum prerequisite to ensure better E-Learning quality levels across the university.

The above-analyzed data stated in

Table 6. Strengths and Areas of Improvement to enhance E-Learning quality levels.

Top Questions
1	The instructor uses blackboard tools effectively	Professor assessment	4.51
2	My instructor(s) were fully committed to the delivery of the course. (E.g., classes started on time, instructor always present, material well prepared, etc.)	Professor assessment	4.48
3	The things I had to do to succeed in the course, including graded assignments and tasks; and criteria for assessment, were made clear to me at the beginning of the course	Course assessment:	4.48
Lowest Questions
1	This course helped me to improve my ability to think and solve problems rather than just memorize information	Course assessment:	4.14
2	Grading of my tests and assignments in this course was fair and reasonable	Course assessment:	4.19
3	Marks for assignments and tests in this course were given to me within a reasonable time	Course assessment:	4.20

related to the SEU E-Learning system assessment and general assessment such as professor assessment and course assessment which further supports the E-Learning quality assessment process by focusing on the strengths and areas of improvement. By adopting the proposed standard, namely “SPECIFIERS,” quality in all aspects of learning in an E-Learning environment for a sustainable education can be ensured through ten review standards, i.e., Student Services, Program delivery, Evaluation, Course overview, Instructional materials and activities, Faculty services, Institutional commitment, Electronic Support System, Regulations, and Survey. One related China-based research study proposed a four-phase evaluation model for E-Learning courses with the name-PDPP (Planning, Development, Process, Product) evaluation model, which is used to assess technical support, learning interaction, instructional material, student-student interaction, faculty support, technical support, and course assessment, etc. [82]. However, this PDPP model was not able to assess all components like this study’s proposed SPECIFIERS model. However, in another similar study, a model was proposed to review E-Learning materials’ quality assessment per the stated components, namely, compatibility evaluation and technical implementation [83]. These stated components have been focused on things that precisely define the E-Learning materials’ development quality, implementation, and its availability. As shown in Figure 8, the overall satisfaction of students with the E-Learning quality levels of learning outcomes will further support in enhancing the teaching and learning experiences at the SEU [84].

The proposed model can be used to enhance the teaching and learning process not only in Saudi Arabia but also in the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, for E-Learning as well as Blended mode programs. However, distance and online programs are multifaceted and are subject to numerous categories of factors, such as planning, technology, organization, etc. [85]. One of the foremost disapprovals of online and distance courses remains inadequate quality apprehensions, even though additional progressive assessments deteriorated in 2014 and 2015. At present, Traditional Learning seems to be the guarantee of quality, exclusively when it moves toward higher education [24]. Moreover, another study using a systematic and bibliographic review aiming to propose an E-Learning self-assessment guide was conducted to support educational institutions in assessing the quality of virtual learning at the internal level. The study proposed an evaluation model based on the extant literature review with four dimensions, namely: organization, student body, teaching, and infrastructure, with 16 standards, 48 requirements, and 63 pieces of evidence that can be applied to the above-stated four dimensions independently [29]. However, our study is unique from this study, as this study has proposed a new quality assessment model, i.e., “SPECIFIERS,” which is based on the review of three online software, i.e., the SEU E-Learning system and based on the extant literature review. This model has 10 E-Learning quality assessment standards containing three levels of review criteria and based on the level of importance, points have been assigned for each criterion. There are 17 Extremely Important standard criteria worth 51 points, 11 Important standard criteria worth 22 points, and 27 Moderately Important standard criteria worth 27 points. The total assigned points for all 55 standards are 100 points, and a minimum of 60 points out of 100 points is required to achieve ratings.

In the contemporary moment, in a society in which the whole thing has to be assessed, the institution of assessment standards for new mechanisms and the standardization of accepted and validated procedures will also create E-Learning environments that are more trustworthy and operational. This research study is a unique study of its kind from existing studies which proposes comprehensive E-Learning quality assessment standards with ten review standards, ways to implement this assessment standard in practices by educational institutions, and the outcomes of this assessment activity with a rating outcome based on the attainment of the final score out of hundred. This research study might guide educational institutions towards the road leading to the destination of quality in all aspects of learning through the implementation of the proposed quality assessment standard titled “SPECIFIERS.”

A similar study was conducted for sustainable education development to develop a widely applicable model of E-Learning. The study has proposed an E-Learning model, which consists of seven consecutive levels of professional and personal development of learners, but no practical implications were stated in this study [86]. Our study is different from this as our study proposed ten E-Learning quality dimensions followed by its implementations in the education industry, explaining a step-by-step process. Another study like our study was conducted in Pakistan and was based on a systematic literature review. That study categorized quality assurance indicators of online higher education and tabulated key quality assessment models used for the assessment and evaluation of quality assurance in online learning globally. This study had not proposed any quality assessment standard. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, quality assurance of online learning in higher education has proven to be a key concern for many higher education institutions globally, which have been offering learning in face-to-face mode. Our study is an attempt to offer an E-Learning quality assessment standard to ensure better levels of quality in all aspects of learning [87].

In addition to this, to confirm a sustainable mode of learning, a study in Saudi Arabia was conducted and presented a holistic E-Learning service framework to warrant operative E-Learning services delivery for sustainable learning and academic enactment. Like our study, this study has also outlined how the E-Learning system was analyzed in prior studies. This study has developed and proposed an E-Learning quality measurement model with five main determinants to measure E-Learning quality levels [56]. However, this study has not offered the practical implications of the proposed model, and this is a major point of differentiation from our study, which clearly presented how educational institutions can use it in practice by following the steps stated in our study.

Sustainable learning has now become the precursor of introspection in virtual classroom settings and present virtual educational surroundings, and the aim of educational institutions is to improve the teaching and learning process’ effectiveness. Like our study, a study was carried out in Taiwan from 2018 to 2020 related to the E-Learning system, namely Moodle E-learning platform called iLearn2.0. assessment as the dependent variable. The findings of the study stated that the class that used the iLearn2.0 supported learning had an improved quality of learning performance than the other two classes that did not use it. Conversely, when investigators used iLearn2.0 alone, in blended learning and face-to-face learning mode, both the scores and the feedback from students were lower [57]. This study had not proposed any quality assessment model like our study, and this makes our study different from it as in our study, we analyzed three online software packages, i.e., the SEU E-Learning system used at SEU, namely Blackboard LMS, Tawkeed Quality Management E-System, and Blue Survey Software. Our study also reviewed the related study and based on these, proposed an E-Learning quality assessment model applicable to a blended mode of learning.

E-learning in higher education can be of boundless significance in current life-long learning for sustainable education development, and bearing this in mind, a study was conducted in Portugal to assess the sustainable education development effectiveness through E-Learning in higher education in a case study of Universidade Aberta. The results of the study provided insights into other educators and researchers in sustainability education toward the development and effective use of online technology for sustainability knowledge, assessment practices competencies, and outcomes assessment [63]. In our study, to assess the sustainable education development effectiveness through E-Learning in higher education in a case study of Saudi Electronic University, we proposed an E-Learning quality assessment standard to ensure boundless life-long quality learning.

Preceding studies offered many scales for measuring student engagement. However, very few have been developed and proposed to measure student engagement in E-Learning environments. A study conducted in South Korea attempted to develop and propose an instrument for measuring student engagement in E-Learning environments [60]. This study focused only on measuring students’ engagement, whereas our study is a holistic study focusing on all aspects of the teaching and learning process in the blended learning mode, and it separates our study from other prior studies. Based on the above-stated related studies concerning the assessment of quality in all aspects of learning in higher education, the methodology employed, and the contribution made by our study are consistent in line with existing related studies and their key contributions. This further confirms the usefulness of our study to global educational institutions, particularly in the context of Saudi Arabia and the MENA region, to assess E-Learning quality levels.

6.3. Implications of the Study

Educational institutions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (K.S.A), have been taking considerable efforts to ensure a higher quality of learning by assessing the overall learning quality. This research study and its proposed E-Learning quality assessment standard might assist them in their quality assurance initiatives at a higher education level. The Academic Policy Makers, especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, might apply the “SPECIFIERS” model for the internal review of courses and programs, which would further support them during the academic accreditation process. SEU might apply this proposed assessment standard for an internal review process. Educators at the college level could adopt this model for reviewing their existing courses before the start of the new academic year so that the missing components might be addressed. Ten review standards might act as an academic manual for third-level institutions which are struggling to deliver quality in their teaching and learning process. The application of the proposed quality assessment standard could provide a benchmark for establishing a wider E-Learning quality assurance mechanism among global educational institutions. The ten criteria and way of application presented in this research are intended to serve as complements to the internal quality assurance initiatives carried out by various universities worldwide, particularly in the MENA region.

The present study will be useful to students who understand the various dimensions of E-Learning at the university. This study will also be helpful to those universities that have already adopted E-Learning platforms or are in the process of adopting E-Learning platforms to understand the challenges and E-Learning requirements. The study provides a significant contribution and adds to the knowledge of instructors related to E-Learning. The quality assurance agencies, consultants, and quality departments might use this proposed assessment model to benefit universities, colleges, students, and the education sector. Higher education providers and regulatory bodies could encourage their stakeholders to apply this proposed assessment standard to maintain and enhance the quality of learning and enhance understanding of review standards. Educational institutions and educators must improve and ensure the E-Learning quality levels of their educational service by applying this review standard to achieve a competitive advantage by providing value to students and society as a beneficiary for education sustainability and sustainable development of education sectors in the long run. The educational sectors will also benefit from this research study and aid in framing policies related to E-Learning.

7. Conclusions

Quality education is recognized as an essential constituent of sustainable education development to accomplish a modest enhancement by delivering value to stakeholders such as students and society. The literature review carried out in this study displays a mounting concentration on quality assurance in education [29]. It was not the aim of this SEU case study research to conclude that E-learning is better than face-to-face learning within sustainable education development, but as being another valid and possible option. This study can deliver acumens to other educational institutions, educators, and researchers in the development of sustainable education by employing the proposed E-Learning quality assessment model [63]. Globally, several educational institutions have capitalized profoundly on the development of the E-Learning system, and many of the courses offered in traditional classroom mode have been converted into E-Learning mode in the unprecedented situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Saudi Electronic University has a competitive advantage over other universities of being among the leading global universities offering courses in a blended mode of learning [56]. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, the global education system went into a fundamental transformation, and the E-Learning mode has been proven very effective in the smooth functioning of the teaching and learning process. Students are seen as the key stakeholders, i.e., customers of global educational institutions and universities, which need effective measures to retain their loyalties [88]. This research work provides qualitative evidence for a proposed standard for measuring E-Learning to assess the quality level of E-Learning outcomes at SEU that is indicative of different qualities of E-Learning outcomes at the university. The study applied a holistic conception of how to measure the standard of E-Learning quality, considering not only the core service (the teaching and learning process) but also the auxiliary administrative and backup services stated in the proposed assessment standard, SPECIFIERS, to ensure that a course or program meets its desired quality level in terms of the E-Learning outcomes. To be truly effective, E-Learning course structure design should involve students, teachers, and industry experts in the research of learning to ensure quality in all aspects of learning. Moreover, the factor of quality is determining the future of E-Learning at the university level globally. In global higher education, E-Learning quality assurance systems may deliver prospects to discover issues related to measuring quality levels outcomes of learning to ensure sustainable education development. There is no uncertainty that learning technologies have predisposed the quality levels of teaching and learning outcomes. However, the traditional mode of learning totally differs from the E-Learning mode [79]. Today, sustainable education development has been perceived as a new trend in teaching and learning with practical models of E-Learning to deliver quality education [89]. The measurement of the quality levels of E-Learning outcomes is the key element in improving the quality of education offered at global universities. The assessment standard proposed in this study will assist universities and educational institutions in delivering a better quality of learning and achieving the desired quality levels of E-Learning outcomes to ensure the sustainability of education. Hence, in building a sustainable education for the future, quality assessment is obligatory for enhancing the quality of life and achieving sustainable global education goals by adopting the ongoing disruptive changes in the global education industry [57,58]. This would be only possible by coupling the supremacy of digital technologies and digital platforms in all aspects of learning. Thus, sustainable E-Learning development cannot be explored without deliberation of the prompt and recurrent expansion of E-Learning systems by employing diverse digital technologies, as E-Learning is indispensable for the E-Learning courses’ quality guarantee [83,90].

Limitations and Further Research Directions

This research is based on a case study of the Saudi Electronic University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Further research might want to expand this to other Saudi Arabian educational institutions as well as to the rest part of the world. Beyond that, the E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard might differ in the context of other educational institutions located in developing and under-developing economies. Another limitation is the fact that this research was conducted using a qualitative research approach using the observation method. Further research might be conducted using a quantitative research approach using the primary data method. However, this research was conducted to assess the quality levels of E-Learning outcomes only.

This research was conducted in the context of E-Learning only, and further research might want to expand this to Traditional Learning for proposing similar assessment standards to assess quality levels of learning outcomes in the context of Traditional Learning. Finally, it would also be interesting to conduct further research to propose a comprehensive assessment standard to assess diverse educational formats such as Distance Learning, Traditional Learning, and Blended Learning using a single assessment standard.