Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:17:40 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
11 SES 05 A: Quality Assurance in Higher Education
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper A Comparative Analysis of Quality Assurance Culture and Stakeholder Involvement in Thailand and Latvia 1: Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand; 2: Riga Stradins University, Latvia Presenting Author:Quality assurance (QA) in higher education is important for maintaining academic standards, improving teaching and learning, and ensuring that education meets societal and labor-market needs (ENQA, 2015; Harvey & Green, 1993). QA is especially important for work-integrated learning (WIL) and cooperative education, as these programs depend on close cooperation between universities, industry, and other stakeholders (Khampirat & Rudzinska, 2025; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017).
QA systems are usually developed based on national regulations and institutional priorities, with a focus on curricula, teaching and learning processes, and learning outcomes (Stensaker, 2008; Vlasceanu et al., 2007). Although higher education is becoming more international, many QA studies still focus on single-country contexts. Comparative research, particularly on quality culture and stakeholder involvement, remains limited (Alzafari & Ursin, 2019). This shows the need for studies that look beyond formal QA procedures and examine how stakeholders take part in QA processes (Leal et al., 2025).
In Europe, QA is often criticized for focusing more on accountability and compliance than on real quality improvement, which may limit its developmental role (Harvey, 2024; Deem et al., 2007). In contrast, studies from Asian higher education systems show that quality culture can support institutional improvement. Research from Taiwan and other Asian contexts suggests that shared values, collective responsibility, and continuous improvement can strengthen QA and complement external quality requirements (Hsu, 2023; Lim, 2018).
Against this background, this study compares QA culture and stakeholder involvement in higher education in Latvia and Thailand. The comparison helps explain how quality assurance is understood and practiced in different contexts, and how stakeholder engagement can be improved to support meaningful quality improvement.
Objectives This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of Quality Assurance (QA) systems and Quality Culture (QC) in the higher education in Thailand and Latvia, with particular attention to stakeholder involvement in QA processes.
Research Questions RQ1 What are key similarities and differences between quality culture in higher education in Thailand and Latvia. RQ2 How does stakeholder involvement in QA in higher education in Thailand and Latvia differ.
Theoretical Framework and Context - This study is grounded in Quality Assurance (QA) theory, which emphasizes continuous improvement, stakeholder involvement, and accountability as core principles for enhancing educational quality (Tetteh et al., 2021). QA is viewed not only as a system of control but also as a developmental process that supports learning improvement and institutional effectiveness. - In Latvia, as a member of the European Union, higher education quality assurance follows the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). The ESG promotes student-centered learning, internal quality culture, and periodic external quality reviews (Academic Information Centre, 2019; ENQA, 2015). - In Thailand, quality assurance is guided by the Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF: HEd), which focuses on learning outcomes, curriculum alignment, and stakeholder engagement to support educational relevance and employability (Khampirat et al., 2020). - This comparative study examines QA systems and quality culture in these two contexts to better understand how different frameworks shape stakeholder involvement and quality enhancement in higher education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative document analysis approach to compare quality assurance (QA) systems, quality culture, and stakeholder involvement in higher education in Thailand and Latvia. Document analysis is a systematic method for reviewing and interpreting written materials, enabling an in-depth understanding of policy frameworks, governance structures, and practices shaping QA systems across different contexts. This approach is appropriate for comparative research, as it allows the examination of similarities and differences in official policies and regulatory arrangements without direct intervention in institutional settings. The research process began with the identification, collection, and screening of relevant policy documents. Documents were selected based on their relevance, official status, and public availability. Representative documents were then chosen for comparative content analysis to ensure coverage of both national QA frameworks and key institutional mechanisms. Data Collection The data consist of publicly available documents, including national QA frameworks, policy reports, accreditation guidelines, and relevant legislation. For Latvia, the main sources include the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and reports published by the Academic Information Centre (AIC), which is responsible for external quality assurance and accreditation in higher education. The ESG serves as a widely recognized benchmark for QA in Europe, emphasizing transparency, stakeholder participation, and student-centered learning (Alzafari & Ursin, 2019). AIC reports provide additional insights into the implementation, strengths, and challenges of QA practices at the national level. For Thailand, the primary documents analyzed include the Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF: HEd) and policy documents issued by the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC). The TQF: HEd focuses on learning outcomes, competency-based education, and alignment with labor-market and industry needs, reflecting global trends in higher education quality assurance. OHEC publications outline standards for internal and external quality assurance, program accreditation, and external quality audits, which have been examined in previous studies (Khampirat et al., 2020). Analytical Approach The analysis follows a thematic analysis approach, which involves identifying, organizing, and interpreting recurring patterns across documents (Nowell et al., 2017). Key themes guiding the analysis include quality culture, stakeholder involvement, and QA governance mechanisms. The study also considers contextual factors, such as regulatory environments and cultural differences, to support a nuanced comparison between the two higher education systems. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings show that QA systems in Thailand and Latvia differ in governance and stakeholder involvement, while sharing a commitment to educational quality. In Thailand, QA operates through a combination of internal and external mechanisms mandated by national legislation. Key national bodies include the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC), which oversees higher education policy, and the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA), responsible for external quality assessment. Stakeholder involvement is strongly emphasized at the institutional level. Students, graduates, employers, academic staff, and community partners are encouraged to participate in internal QA processes through feedback mechanisms, committee membership, and consultations. Thailand’s Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) guidelines promote institutional networks and collaborative practices for developing quality indicators and assessing outcomes. Although external QA conducted by ONESQA incorporates stakeholder input, formal governance roles for external stakeholders are less explicitly defined. In Latvia, QA is strongly shaped by the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) and national regulatory frameworks. The Academic Information Centre (AIC), through the Quality Agency for Higher Education (AIKA), oversees accreditation and licensing, while the Higher Education Quality Assurance Council serves as a key governance body. Stakeholder involvement is highly formalized, with employer organizations and student representatives holding permanent seats on QA councils. This structure supports transparency and accountability but places less emphasis on broad stakeholder participation in routine internal QA processes. Overall, Latvia’s QA culture prioritizes alignment with European standards, international recognition, and student mobility, whereas Thailand’s QA culture emphasizes national development goals, participatory internal processes, and capacity building. References Academic Information Centre. (2019). Development of higher education quality assurance system in Latvia. https://www.aika.lv/en/aika-about/development-of-higher-education-quality-assurance-system-in-latvia/ Alzafari, K., & Ursin, J. (2019). Implementation of quality assurance standards in European higher education: Does context matter? Quality in Higher Education, 25(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1578069 Attree, K. J. (2026). Stakeholder engagement in accreditation and quality assurance via the program advisory board: Contributions and benefits. Quality Assurance in Education, 34(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2025-0112 European Commission. (2025). The ESF+ in Latvia. https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/support-your-country/esf-latvia Harvey, L. (2024). What have we learned from 30 years of Quality in Higher Education: Academics’ views of quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 30(3), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2024.2385793 Hsu, Y. P. (2023). Developing quality culture in higher education in Taiwan: The changes within quality assurance mechanisms. Studies in Higher Education, 48(11), 1741–1753. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2212270 Khampirat, B., & Rudzinska, I. (2025). A comparative analysis of quality assurance and quality culture in career development and work-integrated learning: Thailand and Latvia. Paper presented at ECER 2025, Belgrade, Serbia. Khampirat, B., Hastindra Na Ayudhaya, N., & Bamrungsin, P. (2020). Pedagogy and quality assurance in Thai higher education institutions. In H. Flavian (Ed.), From pedagogy to quality assurance in education: An international perspective (pp. 129–153). Emerald Publishing. Leal Filho, W., Sigahi, T. F. A. C., Anholon, R., et al. (2025). Promoting sustainable development via stakeholder engagement in higher education. Environmental Sciences Europe, 37, Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01101-0 Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia. (2025). Education. https://www.izm.gov.lv/en/education-0 Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 OECD. (2019). Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC). (2025). Vision and mission. https://vec.go.th/Engishpage/VisionandMission.aspx Tetteh, G. A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Twumasi, J. (2021). Developing a quality assurance identity in a university: A grounded theory approach. Quality Assurance in Education, 29(2/3), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-2020-0141 Westerheijden, D. F., & Kohoutek, J. (2014). Implementation and translation: From European standards and guidelines for quality assurance to education quality work in higher education institutions. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education (pp. 1–11). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-494-9 Additional policy document Concept Report on the Implementation of Institutional Accreditation in Latvia. (2022). Report developed within the ERASMUS+ K3 project Road Map for Implementation of Institutional Assessment (Project No. 899137 – RoadMap – EPLUS2020-EHEA09-2019). 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper When Standards Collapse: Rethinking Quality Higher Education Amid Genocide in Gaza 1: Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 2: Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine; 3: University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Presenting Author:The Globe has witnessed a significant rise in violent conflicts in the past three decades (United Nations, 2019). Based on a report by the United Nations (2022), nearly a quarter of the world will be residing in conflict and war areas by the end of 2030. Given this outlook, policymakers and international organizations implement interventions in the education field to empower individuals in these situations to promote development and ultimately attain peace and conflict resolution (Burde et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the quality of the provided higher education in such contexts remains under-theorised. To elaborate, keeping high quality standards in higher education requires strong institutions, robust infrastructure, effective pedagogy, sustained academic governance, and clear progression pathways for students. Yet these basic requirements are violated during conflict, emergencies, and crises. The Inter‑Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) Minimum Standards (2024) provides guide for education in crises, though most scholarship continues to focus on primary and secondary levels, rather than on higher education amid war (Burde et al., 2017; Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies, 2024). This gap is especially profound amid "educide" where infrastructure, staffing, and institutional stability are under direct assault (Alousi, 2022; Iriqat et al., 2025). The case of higher education in the Gaza strip exemplifies the severity of this gap. Since October 2023, this sector has faced relentless bombardment, mass displacement of students and faculty, and the collapse of essential services. Despite these conditions, universities in the Gaza strip resumed academic instruction online in May 2024. People in the Gaza strip see particular importance of education and higher education both for individuals whose aspirations are under threat and for societies striving to maintain the intellectual and professional capacity necessary for recovery (Aboudagga & Al-Mqadma, 2025; Al-Mqadma et al., 2024). There is limited literature available that have focused on the impact of war on higher education institutions, students, and academics in Gaza (Al-Mqadma et al., 2024; Iriqat et al., 2025; Junina, 2025), but none focused on how these institutions could maintain quality education during wartime. This study addresses this gap by examining the experiences of two teachers (first and second authors) engaged in co-teaching a postgraduate course online during the 2024–2025 academic year. It further explores how these adaptations align with the INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, ensuring that the educational response meets recognized international benchmarks for quality and accessibility. The current study is guided by the following research questions (RQs): RQ1. To what extent do teaching and learning practices in wartime align with INEE Minimum Standards? RQ2. How can wartime teaching and learning experiences inform the enhancement of INEE standards in higher education? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Study design This study mainly adopted a self-study approach (Butler & Horton, 2025), drawing on critical self-reflection of the teaching and learning experiences within a postgraduate-level course presented as a case study (Yin, 2014). A mixed-method design was incorporated to triangulate qualitative reflections with quantitative data collected from students. The course was co-taught by the first and second authors using the one-teach, one-assist model (Rytivaara et al., 2024). The second author was early career teacher and served as the primary instructor, and the first author who is a professor with extensive teaching experience at the Islamic University of Gaza (IUG), acted as the co-teacher. Both authors had previously collaborated on another doctoral-level course, and this prior experience informed the planning and pedagogical decisions for the current course. Advanced Research Methodology is a mandatory 3-credit course within the Crisis and Management Doctoral Program at IUG. Twenty-three students initially enrolled, with 18 completing the course. Data were collected from two main sources. First, the primary teacher maintained a reflective diary throughout the course duration, documenting personal and collaborative reflections and joint discussions on teaching, learning, and pedagogical decision-making with the co-teacher. Second, an online questionnaire captured students’ learning experiences. It included 26 Likert-scale items aligned with the five INEE Minimum Standards domains, and six open-ended questions on students’ motivations, challenges, learning experiences, and suggestions for improvement during wartime. Participants and procedures Participation in the study was voluntary. The course participants were provided with detailed information explaining the research aims and data confidentiality. Moreover, participants signed an informed consent form before answering the questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to the course participants after the end of the course. Out of 18 total participants in the course, 10 completed and submitted their answers on the questionnaire. Data Analysis Due to the small sample size, we analysed students’ questionnaire data using descriptive statistics using SPSS software. Students’ open-ended data were analysed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The researchers’ reflection diaries were analysed using a combination of Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) with Brookfield’s (1995) four lenses as an analytical framework, such that specifically the evaluation and analysis phases are not relied only on one instructor’s own viewpoint, but also take into account the perspectives of the students, the co-teacher, and the relevant scholarship. Our intention was to bring together both depth (through Gibbs’ structured cycle) and breadth (through Brookfield’s multiple perspectives). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings indicated the teaching and learning practices during the course aligned with INEE Minimum Standards to a certain extent specifically in Teaching and Learning, but not in Access and Learning Environment. Analysis of reflection highlighted co-teaching as an important element in wartime higher education. The study suggested several recommendations for INEE five standards to navigate uncertainty and improve quality of higher education in war contexts: (1) For Access and Learning: maintaining weekly online sessions and providing learning materials in small, mobile-friendly formats; (2) For Teaching and Learning: promoting quality co-teaching (i.e., a Gazan teacher co-teaches with a dedicated teacher outside Gaza, collaborative reflection), offering multiple-opportunities assessment, and employing project-based learning, with large tasks broken into smaller staged assignments; (3) For Teaching Staff: introducing professional training programs to foster teachers’ reflection skills, co-teaching practices and emotion regulation; (4) For Students’ Participation and Coordination: supporting small group formation and leading and establishing regular feedback channels, and (5) For Institutional Policies: introducing flexible enrolment and assessment policies, restricting minimum number of courses per semester to reduce overload, and facilitating online and co-teaching approaches. References Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, Higher and Adult Education Series Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. Jossey-Bass Inc. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing. A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford Brooks University, Oxford. Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies. (2024). Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery. INEE. https://inee.org/minimum-standards Rytivaara, A., Ahtiainen, R., Palmu, I., Pesonen, H., & Malinen, O.-P. (2024). Learning to Co-Teach: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 14(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010113 Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. (pp. xvii, 355). Jossey-Bass. Al-Mqadma, A., Dittli, R., & Belotti, M. (2024). Resilience in the Rubble: A Needs Assessment of Higher Education in The Gaza Strip. https://www.swisspeace.ch/assets/publications/Reports/241030_Report_Gaza-Higher-Education-Needs-Assessment_final.pdf Banda, R. M., & Reyes, G. (2024). Caring for students by caring for ourselves first: Comadre co-teaching during times of crisis. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(6), 1657–1670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2103668 Bromley, P., & Andina, M. (2010). Standardizing chaos: A neo‐institutional analysis of the INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(5), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903254972 Buckingham, L. R., López-Hernández, A., & Strotmann, B. (2021). Learning by Comparison: The Benefits of Co-Teaching for University Professors’ Professional Development. Frontiers in Education, 6, 776991. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.776991 Burde, D., Kapit, A., Wahl, R. L., Guven, O., & Skarpeteig, M. I. (2017). Education in Emergencies: A Review of Theory and Research. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 619–658. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316671594 Aldahdouh, T. Z., Al-Masri, N., Abou-Dagga, S., & AlDahdouh, A. (2024). Development of online teaching expertise in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1242285. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1242285Quality; Higher Education; INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies; Co-teaching; Reflection; Professional Learning; Palestine; Gaza; War 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Course Quality as a Lever for Digital Transformation: Developing an Education 5.0-aligned Scorecard for Reflective Practice and Informed Course Decisions Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Presenting Author:Digital Transformation (DT) in Higher Education (HE) has consolidated hybrid and flexible learning as core components of institutional strategies (De Bem Machado et al., 2024). This shift towards the adoption of intentional digital models is now challenging long-standing assumptions about teaching, learning and educational quality. While technological infrastructures and platforms have rapidly expanded, pedagogical practices have often evolved more slowly, resulting in a persistent misalignment between digitally mediated learning environments and the educational needs of contemporary students. This tension reflects a broader challenge: quality in digital education is a multidimensional and debated construct, shaped by the interaction of pedagogical, technological, and institutional dimensions (Esfijani, 2018). In practice, institutional approaches to quality tend to privilege evaluation, accreditation, and standardisation processes at the programme or organisational level. Although these mechanisms play an important role in accountability, they frequently remain disconnected from educators’ everyday teaching practices and from the lived learning experiences of students. As a result, quality is typically perceived as an external requirement rather than as a driver capable of supporting teaching innovation and professional growth. At the same time, HEIs are increasingly expected to respond to social and economic demands for more flexible, inclusive, and relevant forms of learning. Students seek learning experiences that support not only academic achievement but also employability, continuous professional development, and lifelong learning. High-quality course design, therefore, extends beyond issues of engagement and retention; it becomes central to fostering learner agency, self-regulated learning, and meaningful connections between academic learning and real-world challenges (Lowenthal & Davidson-Shivers, 2019). Addressing these expectations requires a pedagogical reconfiguration of teaching practices. Within this context, the DIGITAsia project positions course quality as a central and actionable lens through which digital transformation can be meaningfully enacted. Conceived as an international strategic partnership supporting DT in HE institutions in Asia, the project recognises the educators’ role as key agents in designing, enacting, and evaluating digitally enhanced learning environments (Singun, 2025). Education 5.0 is established as the theoretical framework (Babu, 2024), understood as a human-centred vision of education that emphasizes the critical and meaningful use of technology in support of inclusion, personalisation and social impact. It reframes digital technologies as partners in addressing complex educational challenges. This vision informs both pedagogical design choices and the criteria through which course quality is explored, aligning quality enhancement with student-centred learning, accessibility, and real-world relevance. It is within this conceptual space that we developed the Course Quality Scorecard (CQS). Conceived as a structured yet flexible reflective tool, the CQS is designed to support educators in examining and enhancing the quality of their course designs (Xie et al., 2025). This is a response to recent calls for quality instruments that move beyond standardisation toward capability-building and professional development (McInnes et al., 2024). The CQS translates the principles of Education 5.0 into a coherent set of operational dimensions, covering flexible learning, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), student-centred approaches, data-informed design, emerging AI-enhanced practices, and the development of employability skills. The CQS thus addresses the core domains of online quality that are essential for effective digital delivery (Esfijani, 2018), while avoiding the limitations of prescriptive checklists that often fail to capture the diversity of specific disciplinary contexts (McInnes et al., 2024). Within DIGITAsia, the CQS is embedded in a trainers’ programme for educators, along with a Capstone Project (CP) in which they redesign and pilot their courses. Against this background, this study addresses the following research question: to what extent do educators perceive the CQS as providing a coherent, clear, and relevant framework for supporting reflection and decision-making on course quality in alignment with Education 5.0 principles. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts Design-Based Research (DBR) (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Anderson & Shattuck, 2012) for its capacity to address complex educational problems through iterative, collaborative, theory-informed and participatory processes (Duea et al., 2022). It unfolds across four interrelated phases: (1) analysis of the problem with practitioners; (2) development of a theory-informed CQS; (3) internal validation through expert feedback and a focus group; and (4) reflection and abstraction to inform further refinement. In Phase 1, through dialogue with educators, instructional designers, and quality staff from DIGITAsia partners, a shared challenge emerged: while digital technologies and hybrid delivery models are increasingly adopted, practitioners reported a lack of pedagogically grounded tools to support the renewal of course design practices and to reinterpret quality beyond institutional processes. This analysis highlighted the need for a course-level, educator-centred approach to quality that supports reflective practice, pedagogical innovation, and alignment with Education 5.0 principles. Phase 2 involved the design of a first version of the CQS. The development of the CQS was theoretically anchored in Education 5.0, understood as a human-centred, socially responsive vision of digital education that emphasises inclusion, learner agency, and the meaningful use of technology. To operationalise these principles at the course level, a structured review of prominent international course quality frameworks (including TELAS, EADTU E-xcellence, OLC Quality Scorecards, and Quality Matters) was conducted. The analysis examined standards, dimensions, criteria, indicators, and scoring mechanisms, with particular attention to how these frameworks address inclusivity, student-centred pedagogies, and technology-enhanced learning design. A crosswalk analysis was conducted to map correspondences, overlaps, and divergences, supported by colour-coded visualisations to identify common elements and variations in hierarchical structures. Insights from this synthesis informed the drafting of the first version of the CQS. Phase 3 consisted of the internal validation (Maina et al., 2023) via iterative cycles of implementation, testing, and refinement in practice. The initial version of the CQS, revised following expert feedback from quality staff (7) within the partnership, was first implemented within a future trainers programme. This course aimed to prepare educators and instructional designers to support DT initiatives and was structured around four modules: Education 5.0, UDL, Learning Management Systems and Learning Analytics, and course quality enhancement. Data were collected through a post-implementation focus group with seven participants (one from each project partner institution) with dual roles of educators and train-the-trainers within each institution. The focus group transcript was subjected to a structured thematic analysis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The first version of the CQS resulting from phase one of the DBR is a structured multi-level scorecard organised into domains, criteria, and indicators. It articulates course quality across three main domains (Course Design, Program Alignment, and Teaching Practice) operationalised through a graduated scoring system (Absent, Developing, Achieved, Exemplary, Not Relevant) that supports reflective evaluation and incremental improvement. It also integrates a visual dashboard scoring system for rapid mapping of the CQS self-evaluation implementation. Educators were invited to reflect on the practical relevance and clarity of the CQS, with a specific focus on how the three domains support educators’ course design decisions, help identify professional development needs, and foster dialogue with institutions to inform training programs, support strategies, and areas for policy and organizational development. Insights from quality experts’ feedback and from educators course post-implementation focus group indicate that the CQS was positively received as a support for reflective practice and informed course design decisions. Overall, the tool was evaluated as conceptually sound and practically useful. The iterative feedback also identifies opportunities to improve the clarity and simplicity of selected indicators, as well as the need , for contextual adaptations to enhance institutional transferability. Together, these iterative results highlight the CQS as a practice-oriented tool that fosters reflective dialogue around course design, making visible teachers’ professional development needs and supporting institutions in identifying training priorities, support mechanisms, and areas for policy and organisational development. Building on these findings, the revised CQS will be implemented in the Capstone Project course for educators engaged in redesigning their own courses. Data from this second implementation will serve as external validation. This step represents the transition towards the fourth phase of the DBR, where reflection from both implementations will be synthesized to inform further refinement of the tool. References -Amiel, Tel & Reeves, T. (2008). Design-Based Research and Educational Technology: Rethinking technology and the research Agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40. https://www.j-ets.net/collection/published-issues/11_4 -Anderson, T., Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research: A decade of progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813 -Babu, B. V. (2024). Education 5.0: An overview. In A. Garg, B. V. Babu, & V. E. Balas (Eds.), Advances in Technological Innovations in Higher Education: Theory and Practices (pp. 168–243). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003376699 -De Bem Machado, A., Sousa, M.J., Dal Mas, F., Secinaro, S. & Calandra, D. (2024). Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52296-3 -Duea, S. R., Zimmerman, E. B., Vaughn, L. M., Dias, S., & Harris, J. (2022). A guide to selecting participatory research methods based on project and partnership goals. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.32605 -Esfijani, A. (2018). Measuring quality in online education: A meta-synthesis. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1417658 -Lowenthal, P. R., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2019). Strategies used to evaluate online education. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 415–427). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315296135 -Maina, M., Guàrdia, L., Mancini, F., García-Londoño, C. (2023). Development of a model for transversal competence assessment in K-12: an internal validation study for the digital competence. Interaction Design and Architecture(s), 57, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-057-003 -McInnes, R., Hobson, J. E., Johnson, K. L., Cramp, J., Aitchison, C., & Baldock, K. L. (2024). Online course quality evaluation instruments: A scoping review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8978 -Singun, A. (2025). Unveiling the barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions: a systematic literature review. Discover Education, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00430-9 -Xie, J., Ferguson, Y., Gulinna, A., Rice, M., & Nichols, M. (2025). Modification and evaluation of an open-source rubric guiding inclusive design. Distance Education, 46(3), 452–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2024.2383227 | ||